All the Kid templates are converted to faster Mako templates, i18n/l18n features have been partially reimplemented using Python Babel, CherryPy2 (TG is built on top of CP2) was replaced with CherryPy3, the latest, much better version of CherryPy Server.
This greatly reduced the pain of getting started with and deploying of Open ERP Web client. Now the number of third party dependencies are reduced to 3-4 pure Python libraries which you can install within the local lib dir with the help of `populate.sh` script, found under the same lib directory. Just get the source from Launchpad, run the populate.sh and launch the web client...
The initial test results are very impressive. We have seen almost 3-5 time speed improvement. Here are the benchmark results of the latest trunk version against the stable 5.0 branch which is running over TurboGears.
The benchmark test was done using Apache Benchmark Tool against relatively bigger Customer Invoice Form view. The command was used like this:
$ ab -C session_id=$session -n 100 "http://localhost:8080/form/edit?model=account.invoice&id=1"
where $session should be replaced with session id (you can use firebug to see the session id).
Here is the comparison between before and after improvements in Open ERP web client
| Result of Open ERP Web 5.0 (TurboGears + Kid) | Result of Open ERP Web Trunk (CherryPy3 + Mako) |
| This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> | This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> |
| Concurrency Level: 1 | Concurrency Level: 1 |
| Time taken for tests: 166.323 seconds | Time taken for tests: 42.054 seconds |
| Complete requests: 100 | Complete requests: 100 |
| Failed requests: 0 | Failed requests: 0 |
| Write errors: 0 | Write errors: 0 |
| Total transferred: 8022000 bytes | Total transferred: 9063400 bytes |
| HTML transferred: 7996500 bytes | HTML transferred: 9039400 bytes |
| Requests per second: 0.60 [#/sec] (mean) | Requests per second: 2.38 [#/sec] (mean) |
| Time per request: 1663.228 [ms] (mean) | Time per request: 420.543 [ms] (mean) |
| Time per request: 1663.228 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) | Time per request: 420.543 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) |
| Transfer rate: 47.10 [Kbytes/sec] received | Transfer rate: 210.47 [Kbytes/sec] received |
| Connection Times (ms) | Connection Times (ms) |
| min mean[+/-sd] median max | min mean[+/-sd] median max |
| Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0 | Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0 |
| Processing: 1556 1663 71.3 1663 1856 | Processing: 382 420 27.7 415 523 |
| Waiting: 1555 1662 71.3 1662 1855 | Waiting: 381 420 27.7 415 522 |
| Total: 1556 1663 71.3 1663 1856 | Total: 382 420 27.7 416 523 |
| Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) |
| 50% 1663 | 50% 416 |
| 66% 1681 | 66% 418 |
| 75% 1695 | 75% 420 |
| 80% 1715 | 80% 424 |
| 90% 1775 | 90% 436 |
| 95% 1801 | 95% 512 |
| 98% 1829 | 98% 520 |
| 99% 1856 | 99% 523 |
| 100% 1856 (longest request) | 100% 523 (longest request) |
Conclusion
You can see significant performance boost in second test result. We observed 3-5 time speedup. There are still room to improve the performance further. Like reducing RPC calls, catching results of some computationally heavy functions. Implementing a way to directly call server methods if web client and server are installed on the same system (completely eliminating TCP layer).
What's next?
Besides this, we also planned to make web client modular implementing plugin system which let you create your own plugins to extend the functionality of the web client. We appreciate your ideas and suggestions in this regards.
Also, we have planned for a better main menu & tabified interface (similar to GTK client) where you always have access to the main menu and all views will be opened in tabs inside the same html page instead of utilising browser tabs. We had discussion about such interface previously, you can search the forum for a very good mockup implementation.
We are also thinking of writing some automated unit tests using CP3 testing API. We already wrote some basic tests to check how to proceed. You can run all tests by launching `run-tests.py` script...
We greatly appreciate you ideas, suggestions in this regards...
Thanks and regards to all contributors
Open ERP Team
Save time/money with Open ERP web client.
