I remember the discussion here - but it seems that nobody tried to
independently verify the results. I did compare Rails and Catalyst
and on my pretty standard Debian box Catalyst was about 50% faster
than Rails.
--
Zbyszek
On 1/14/07, Octavian Rasnita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Here is
... the trick is to 'use base Class::DBI' and not 'use base
C::Model::CDBI::Plain'
in the root pm. table.
--vb
On 1/14/07, vb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use CDBI - not DBIC - and I have the classical tables User, Role,
UserRole
(Authentication Authentication::Store::DBIC
Victor Igumnov wrote:
Regardless, the benchmark was fairly simplistic to begin with which only
stressed the dispatcher.
Didn't you say at one point you changed it to not use the templating
systems? Because it says
Document Path: /
and
sub default : Private {
my ( $self, $c
I did try my tests once again and they do indeed use WEBrick. I'll
try to fix that. By the way - is it possible to deploy Catalyst over
lighttpd?
--
Zbyszek
On 1/15/07, Victor Igumnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main devs confirmed my results. Concerning your benchmark, I am
pretty sure
completely academic at the moment, but it would be interesting to see
the benchmark comparison thing done properly. If it were, the way
would be to specify a set of application functions, let people within
the various projects implement them as they wish, then benchmark. I
suppose ...
so what
On 15/01/07, Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did try my tests once again and they do indeed use WEBrick. I'll
try to fix that. By the way - is it possible to deploy Catalyst over
lighttpd?
Yup:
Daniel McBrearty wrote:
completely academic at the moment, but it would be interesting to see
the benchmark comparison thing done properly. If it were, the way
would be to specify a set of application functions, let people within
the various projects implement them as they wish, then
e ability of the app to parse the uri, and process it.
I think this is a bit too simple. We should probably look at usual kinds
of URIs used in applications here.
/
/foo/bar/baz
/foo/1/bar/2/baz/3/4
/foo?bar=baz
...and probably more...
Also, there should be more than one action. I
Leandro Hermida
Speed does matter and I believe the original thread question is a valid
one. Not everyone has the time or the know-how to do wheel reinvention
and write custom daemons (I know I don't). That's why people write
kernels and libraries and abstraction of lower level things so that
* Carl Johnstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-15 13:15]:
So surely you pick the framework that most helps you get things
done rather than the one that works fastest?
Yes and no. Depends on what you’re doing. But in the case of
Catalyst, you’ll probably get much more speed out of switching
to
Daniel McBrearty wrote:
Personally, I don't care about templating and ORM benchmarks,
why not?
Well, templating benchmarks maybe, but for an ORM I just have the
feeling the larger factor is how you use it, not which.
--
# Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek
# Perl 5/Catalyst Developer in Hamburg,
Now to say the truth, I won't use RoR because I don't know Ruby, but I
want to know which are the advantages and disadvantages of Catalyst
comparing with other frameworks.
The most important advantage/disadvantage *to you* must be that Catalyst is
Perl and you know that, and RoR is Ruby and
For businesses the cost-to-develop and cost-to-maintain are usually more
important than handler performance.
The reason is that in most medium-large transactional web systems the
bottleneck is the database and not the framework.
A 10-100x slowdown in using an ORM or your framework of choice
Len Jaffe ha scritto:
On 12/22/06, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, I use Windows as a $300 dumb terminal. (A slow and
virus-prone
dumb terminal.)
Why not use X?
Having a winxp laptop (which is fine when developing in bed), and a
Linux mid-tower (sitting on the other
From: Carl Johnstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now to say the truth, I won't use RoR because I don't know Ruby, but I
want to know which are the advantages and disadvantages of Catalyst
comparing with other frameworks.
The most important advantage/disadvantage *to you* must be that Catalyst
is Perl
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
I have seen fewer and fewer people start learning perl, and more become
interested about Python and Ruby (not mentioning those that like C#,
Java, C...).
They can say that their preferate language is better, that it is newer
and that it took what's the best from perl
On 14/01/07, Ash Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonas Alves wrote:
Hi all,
I was starting to put authentication in a Reaction application that i'm
developing when I saw that Reaction has this classes:
Reaction::InterfaceModel::Action::DBIC::Role::CheckUniques;
On 1/15/07, Victor Igumnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that is for custom JS code you have added. The default javascript
code from formbuilder is omitted when you iterate through the fields.
again, I think you are incorrect or I'm misunderstanding what you are
saying. I have no customer JS code.
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 11:35 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote:
To summarize (again): The benchmark doesn't benchmark Catalyst, only
it's dispatcher
I think it's a lame benchmark too, but isn't a dispatcher mostly what
Catalyst is? DBIx::Class and TT are not Catalyst, as people often
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 13:24 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote:
Daniel McBrearty wrote:
Personally, I don't care about templating and ORM benchmarks,
why not?
Well, templating benchmarks maybe, but for an ORM I just have the
feeling the larger factor is how you use it, not which.
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 14:51 +0200, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
I would like to say that it is not true, but I cannot see any benchmarks
I don't think anyone disputes that Perl (and Python and Java) are much
faster than Ruby. You can find benchmarks showing that all over the
web. The RoR boosters
From: Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think anyone disputes that Perl (and Python and Java) are much
faster than Ruby. You can find benchmarks showing that all over the
web. The RoR boosters are usually the ones on the defensive over
performance, saying that language performance
On 1/15/07, Octavian Rasnita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why I was curious and I have sent to the list that blog with the
comparison between RoR and Catalyst.
You need to keep in mind that sometimes it's easier to optimize things
for benchmarks than for real world applications. That
On 15/01/07, Jonas Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/01/07, Ash Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonas Alves wrote:
Hi all,
I was starting to put authentication in a Reaction application that
i'm
developing when I saw that Reaction has this classes:
they are not, but when you choose a framework you don't just choose a
dispatcher. You choose all the other design options that go with it.
On 1/15/07, Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 11:35 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote:
To summarize (again): The benchmark
Whereas features are extremely important in any framework used, speed
is still an important thing when you're considering how much hardware to
purchase and how you'll be deploying based on your expected load(and god
forbid you turned into the next myspace, then it really matters). And
yes,
Le 15 janv. 07 à 21:51, Christopher Hicks a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:27:08PM +0100, Daniel McBrearty wrote:
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was done
well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the basis of
such a benchmark, but it's a factor to
* Daniel McBrearty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-15 20:40]:
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was
done well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the
basis of such a benchmark, but it's a factor to throw into the
mix.
Because as long as the framework is not
Hi,
I am using Catalyst + DBIx::Class for the first time and was running
through the tutorial located here:
http://search.cpan.org/~jrockway/Catalyst-Manual-5.700501/lib/Catalyst/Manual/Tutorial/CatalystBasics.pod
I ran into a couple of problems, both having to do with the example
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the note. Yes, that does sound like version issues. I'll
do some research and see if there is a way to have it work on older
versions, but that can get sticky at time.
Thanks,
Kennedy
On 1/15/07, Jim Spath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am using Catalyst + DBIx::Class
On Monday 15 January 2007 18:45, Jim Spath wrote:
I am running:
Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS
Perl 5.8.7 # old
Catalyst 5.61 # old
DBIx::Class 0.07005
Template 2.14# old
I'm guessing that the tutorial is assuming a more recent version of
Catalyst?
A. Pagaltzis ha scritto:
* Marcello Romani [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-15 14:15]:
I usually do Cygwin/X, xhost +, then ssh into linux box, export
DISPLAY and type startkde.
You know that you can have SSH forward X so that none of the
extra steps are necessary? (Plus your session is encrypted
32 matches
Mail list logo
