> But has it been proven to be effective? I haven't seen any numbers. I > helped implement it, but I don't recall that we (ArsDigita) ever did a > serious analysis of whether it improved performance. Personaly I doubt it, except when it is for massive pages with lots of procs. (Tcl only compiles code likely to be reused, which is procs, I expect the bytecode cache to do the same)
So it depends on you architecture. If you have long scripts as .tcl files in the pageroot (but with many procs), then yes. But personaly I hate that and you are better off writing as much as possible in libraries and have only a few lines on the actual .tcl/adp page. Which begs the question, what would be faster; having these long pages cached and have a small master interpreter which is copied faster(?), or simply having everything in libraries and a "heavy" master interpreter. Bas. I. To remove yourself from this list: Send a message to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with the following text in the BODY of your message: signoff aolserver II. For a complete list of listserv options please visit: http://listserv.aol.com/ III. For more AOLserver information please visit: http://www.aolserver.com/
