On 17 Jan 2007, at 18:24, Sébastien Wagener wrote:
What about profiling real world applications where the Catalyst
seems to
be the bottleneck?
On my production server, database requests are usually quite fast, so
most of the time is spent in perl code, and here are the first
lines of
a
* Jay K [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-17 18:20]:
I agree 100% on this... if we are judging Catalyst, et al, as
simple dispatchers, then we should consider apache+cgi in the
discussion as well - as apache is obviously one of the most
venerable and widely deployed dispatchers out there.
Eh? Apache
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Eh? Apache doesn’t dispatch anything unless maybe you’re talking
about mod_perl
If that's true, then GETting http://mysite.com/foo/bar/baz.html would
get a file named $DOCROOT/foo\/bar\/baz.html. Considering that's never
the case (you can't have / in UNIX filenames, only
* Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-18 17:55]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Eh? Apache doesn’t dispatch anything unless maybe you’re
talking about mod_perl
If that's true, then GETting http://mysite.com/foo/bar/baz.html
would get a file named $DOCROOT/foo\/bar\/baz.html.
Considering
* Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-18 19:40]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Are we done splitting this hair now or do you need more
clarification?
Depends on what you mean by methods:
foo.pl:
use MyApp;
print MyApp-foo($ENV{QUERY_STRING});
bar.pl:
use MyApp;
print
* Jay K [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-18 20:10]:
Point being that frameworks provide more than choosing what to
do,
Care to actually mention a few examples?
if you stop the comparison at that point, then you might as
well include every web server in your comparison.
As long as the web server
A. Pagaltzis said:
* Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-16 15:55]:
That's a rather odd comparison. I'd say benchmarking mapping
of URLs to methods isn't a good test of Catalyst like
benchmarking DBI isn't a good test of DBIx-Class.
I agree that Perrinâs analogy was a
I agree 100% on this... if we are judging Catalyst, et al, as simple
dispatchers, then we should consider apache+cgi in the discussion as
well - as apache is obviously one of the most venerable and widely
deployed dispatchers out there.
A framework is much more than that. In my
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote:
When I request a resource from a Catalyst application, two things are
executed: The framework logic, and my application logic. But this is not a
first the one, then the other execution. During the request, the
framework calls
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 19:24 +0100, Sébastien Wagener wrote:
On my production server, database requests are usually quite fast, so
most of the time is spent in perl code, and here are the first lines of
a dprofpp -r on my local 2.8 Ghz Laptop (production database,
Algorithm::C3 0.06, mod_perl
Like what? And what about those other design options is
benchmarkable?
1. the language. For instance, a key factor against RoR for me was the
fact that Ruby doesn't know where its going w.r.t. unicode. Perl has
mature support for that. There are multiple other reasons why people
like/dislike
Le 16 janv. 07 à 11:27, Daniel McBrearty a écrit :
Fair enough. So why not try to design a benchmark in such a way that
those techniques can be exploited? What is the simplest set of tests
that has some meaning for you?
I don't know :) I'm thinking benchmarking simple things don't work.
* 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
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
On Nov 16, 2006, at 7:44 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 14:40]:
I respectfully suggest that those who criticize his work should
use their energies to /improve/ his test rather than merely
dismissing it as worthless. Using his code as a base, couldn't
one
* Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 14:40]:
I respectfully suggest that those who criticize his work should
use their energies to /improve/ his test rather than merely
dismissing it as worthless. Using his code as a base, couldn't
one create a test that was more fair? Then someone
* Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 16:45]:
It's a world where PHBs often look at web stats and ask What
the hell is this slow a lot more than they ask Why isn't the
system flexible.
If he decides it’s because the framework is slow and makes you
switch, that means two things:
On 11/16/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 14:40]:
I respectfully suggest that those who criticize his work should
use their energies to /improve/ his test rather than merely
dismissing it as worthless. Using his code as a base, couldn't
* Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-17 03:20]:
On 11/16/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I say I'm afraid this pasta tastes so awful I just can't
eat it, would you respond well at least [the cook] did
prepare something! maybe you should stop mouthing off and do
it better?
21 matches
Mail list logo
