> >>>>> "Doug" == Doug MacEachern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Doug> Apache::RegistryNG uses the filename instead of uri. uri was
> Doug> chosen because there used to be a limit to the length of Perl
> Doug> package names. and regardless, shorter package name based on
> Doug> the uri uses less memory and provides a faster lookup than the
> Doug> filename.
>
> I see Apache::RegistryNG @ISA Apache::PerlRun. Furthermore, perldoc
> Apache::PerlRun states the following:
>
> The Apache::Registry handler is much faster than
> Apache::PerlRun. However, Apache::PerlRun is much faster
> than CGI ...
>
> This would seem to imply Apache::Registry is also much faster than
> Apache::RegistryNG. Apart from the filename vs. uri namespace
> difference and the OO nature of Apache::RegistryNG, are there any
> compelling reasons to consider RegistryNG over Registry?
* Apache::RegistryNG doesn't stat() the script on each request, like
Registry does.
* Inheriting some module doesn't mean really using all of its
functionality. I didn't check the code, but I guess it just uses some of
the methods from PerlRun, but overloads the "slow" ones. PerlRun is slower
because it flushes the namespace and doesn't cache the code (it does it on
purpose, to let dirty scripts to run). RegistryNG works like Registry
otherwise. (Well may be there are other differences too)
Doug will have to confirm my guesses. He endorses the use of NG for a long
time, but the habits are hard to change :) So you will be the pioneer,
isn't it exciting?
_______________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stason.org/stas
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC http://www.stason.org/stas/TULARC
perl.apache.org modperl.sourcegarden.org perlmonth.com perl.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheaven http://www.singlesheaven.com
