David Morel ha scritto:
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
If a framework makes development easier because it's more elegant, easy
to use, or whatever, then you may have more time to think about setting
up a more efficient deployment architecture (i.e. the thinks mentioned
above).
Therefore it seems to me that ease of developement might be more
important to the overall app performance than the raw speed in simple
test cases.
Just my 2 (euro)cents.
_______________________________________________
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/
--
Marcello Romani
Responsabile IT
Ottotecnica s.r.l.
http://www.ottotecnica.com
_______________________________________________
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/
