On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Michael Montero wrote: > My main concern would be with how expensive ImageMagick calls can be and > the need to call both mogrify and convert (in my experience) to get a > single thing done to an image. I would much rather read an image into > memory and then perform a host of functions to it rather then read, write, > read, write, etc.
Fair enough, though... > Of course, this is all less interesting if there is a proxy caching the > images. In which case, the performance hit is to generate the initial > image only. This was the point I was trying to make, yes. No matter which path you chose, you're likely to want mod_cache anyway if there's any amount of redundancy in the images you're computing (which, for the kind of site you described, I can only imagine that there WOULD be)... and if you're using mod_cache, then you might be able to justify that extra bit of initial overhead more easily. It's definitely the case that a native module will perform better, and should be the preferred option if it will have to run frequently (eg, if the parameters passed change frequently enough that mod_cache would be ineffective). Although I'd still be interested to consider the mod_perl module option that was just mentioned in that case. I'm just trying to save you a little development time. :) --Cliff
