I agree 100% on this... if we are judging Catalyst, et al, as simple
dispatchers, then we should consider apache+cgi in the discussion as
well - as apache is obviously one of the most venerable and widely
deployed dispatchers out there.
A framework is much more than that. In my experience, the costs in
time and money involved in building and maintaining the code for an
app outweigh the cost of deploying it by huge margins. Furthermore,
by the time you are experiencing enough traffic to be analyzing the
performance at this granular a level, there are much better ways to
improve your responses per second that cost much less in terms of
time and money.
These days, for less than the cost of a week of work, you can double
your serving capacity easily - and because of the 'fringe benefits'
of using Catalyst this is usually simply a matter of swapping out
session and caching plugins (if you even use them) to the more cross-
server compatible modules.
If you are using a frontend cache like squid, you can do even more
cost-for-performance-wise.
Personally, I use Catalyst because it takes care of a lot of details
I would rather not worry about. When I am free of worrying about
all those details, I can focus on building JUST my application
logic. This means that my application logic tends to be more solid,
because I am not tracking a ton of specifics outside of my app.
Because I'm not constantly crossing the line between my app and base
functionality (responding to HTTP, getting the correct bit of code
executed based on the request, etc.), I am not chasing bugs related
to that line. I can rely on the fact that it will always happen in a
particular way and if I have a bug, it's more than likely in my
application, so I can focus there.
That is the power of a Framework any 'benchmark' that doesn't take
those things into account is so much fluff and of no use to me.
JayK
On Jan 17, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Marcello Romani wrote:
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/
---
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and
lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. --
Abraham Lincoln
_______________________________________________
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/
