Le 15 janv. 07 à 21:51, Christopher Hicks a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:27:08PM +0100, Daniel McBrearty wrote:
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was done
well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the basis of
such a benchmark, but it's a factor to throw into the mix
Does that include dynamic content caching wizardry ? It is
meaningless if you don't take into account real-life scenarios like
reverse proxy cache invalidation policies (and tricks). This is just
to say that all this perf talk is meaningless : sometimes the power
you get from a well thought out framework allows you to do things
that are close to magick, speed-wise among others. Comparing simple
setups is ridiculous IMHO.
David Morel
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
