On 22 Aug 2004, at 18:30, Elliot F. wrote:
How does speedycgi compare to pperl? Is pperl being used more as a generic term for persistent perl processes? Speedycgi has worked wonderfully for me (Debian Sarge 2.22-1) without any apparent problems. However, most of the discussions I've seen tend to mention pperl rather than speedycgi.
If they are not interchangeable, what advantages are there of one over the other? They seem to both have the same concept (backend pre- compiled process). Any other users of speedycgi wish to speak up? My server has a relatively low flow of traffic, so it's not the best example.
SpeedyCGI is probably more stable than pperl, but it sometimes doesn't compile for people because it embeds the entire perl interpreter. My aim to improve pperl is to add some of speedycgi's (also known as PersistentPerl) test suite to pperl - it seems a little more comprehensive.
I make no secret of the fact that I wrote pperl because I couldn't get speedycgi to compile. Both do the same job.
Matt.
