<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Latest posts for the topic "Optimize the performance in Tree´s array"]]></title>
		<link>http://www.icefaces.org/JForum/posts/list/12.page</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest messages posted in the topic "Optimize the performance in Tree´s array"]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>Optimize the performance in Tree´s array</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ We have about 3,000 boxes in a Tree, but is very slow and the Firefox doesn´t respond.

Could you have some tips for the best performance.

Thank´s 

Miguel Angel]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.icefaces.org/JForum/posts/list/8988.page#37372</guid>
				<link>http://www.icefaces.org/JForum/posts/list/8988.page#37372</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:38:23]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ miguel.gonzalez]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Optimize the performance in Tree´s array</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Is it necessary to pre-populate the tree with 3,000 boxes from the start?  Couldn't you break it up into pages, only displaying the nodes when required?  If they're all on the same level, return them in fixed-size chunks (20 at a time?), and only get the next twenty on request?  If they're not on the same level, only get the child nodes when the parent node has been expanded?

From a usability point of view, I wouldn't think that sifting through a tree with 3,000 nodes would be something a User would want to do...]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.icefaces.org/JForum/posts/list/8988.page#37387</guid>
				<link>http://www.icefaces.org/JForum/posts/list/8988.page#37387</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:38:22]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ hildo]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>