On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 12:58, Ged Haywood wrote: [snip] > I don't think I can add much to what Perrin has said. If you're up > against it because you've walked into a heap of Perl scripts that > grew like Topsy, you probably don't want to spend the time and take > the risk of making wholesale changes, especially if the thing is > doing pretty much what it needs to do.
This is exactly the case. I'd like to redesign everything, but its not worth the time and risk right now. > But I'd echo Perrin's call > for a bit of design thinking if you're taking it to the next stage > of its lifecycle. There's a lot of experience hiding around here > somewhere, and nothing provokes a longer thread than a thorny issue. > Not that I need a lot more mail... :) Right now I think I might try to convert a select few of our most hit scripts into handlers to see if some performance can be gained. > > It seems to me that most people these days are using toolkits > > There are probably good reasons for that. I think Perrin is the one > who's done most on comparing and contrasting them, but if you want to > make a contribution you could do worse than take a few of them out for > a spin and let us know what you find. By all means ask what other > people think about them for your situation first. Right now we use Text::Tmpl which I'm not crazy about (it leaks memory and is hard to debug), but it seems to be fastest gun in the west for the minimal features we use (echo'ing vars, loops and simple conditionals). I'd like to move to something more feature rich, but during high load days our 3 servers really break a sweat as it is. Benchmarks showed that the bulk of the time was spent in Text::Tmpl, so its not our code (though that can always stand improvements). If anyone knows of any other simple C-based templating systems they use and like, I'd be interested to hear about it! -- |- Garth Webb -| |- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -|
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
