On 6/6/06, Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I'm seeing some ugly execution times for Fusebox 4 > > Its the price to pay to use such a framework.
Actually, in many cases, FB4 can be faster than non-FB apps, because the cores do a fair amount of compilation on the first request, and then cache the result for subsequent requests. That's production mode only, of course. This benefit, in particular, weighs in over Mach-II and Model-Glue apps, both of which depend on some runtime (implicit) execution, while FB is entirely compile-time. > I had to work on a Fusebox application once, I found it pretty slow too, > and finally discovered that the same query was run more that 25 times > for the same page ! That's a poor architect, not anything to do with the framework. > Ok, t'was probabilly a "poorly developed" application, but isn't a frame > work supposed > to help develop "well designed applications"? Yes, assuming two other statements are true: 1. the designer/developer is competent in general. 2. the designer/developer has invested sufficient time in the framework to understand how to leverage it effectively. I could build some hellishly ugly Mach-II/Model-Glue/whatever applications in the same way. I could also use the rubber end of the hammer and wonder why it's so bad at pounding in nails. ; ) cheers, barneyb -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 100 invites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:242643 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
