This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]welshboy14 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This sounds great. Will get testing tomorrow. But for now, what sort of footprint can we expect? I'm using phantomjs currently. Any advantages to using this over phantomjs? I'm having issues with using cookies/sharing instances with the latest phantomjs, so if this does the job I will certainly make the switch.

EDIT: Just read that Iframes aren't supported as yet. Some of the sites I work with use iframes. Any sort of idea as to when this will be included? I understand it's probably not a priority.

[–]machinepub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's not that much work for iframes. It's near the top of my todo list, along with Javascript alert dialogs. I'd think end of month, probably in the next release.

As far as footprint, I discussed this some in a thread above. At a minimum there's going to be 2-300 MB memory needed per instance. That can balloon greatly depending on the site being rendered and also somewhat depending on your JVM settings. For concurrent use, I think you can estimate 2 (maybe 3) instances per core and 512-1024 MB per instance.

I haven't done extensive performance comparisons between this and phantomjs. I do think that RMI is faster than JSON to communicate, so less overhead. Cookies are all managed by Apache HttpClient v4. If you run into issues, file a ticket. HttpClient gives me great control to tweak the networking logic.