On 7/5/06, Cees Hek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/5/06, Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:40 -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
This is another good reason to work on making CGI::Application easier to use
under mod_perl!
Is there something difficult about using it
On 7/5/06, Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:40 -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
This is another good reason to work on making CGI::Application easier to use
under mod_perl!
Is there something difficult about using it under mod_perl?
I think he is considering
* Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-02T23:00:18]
One thing I know that he and nothingmuch have been working on in Moose is
the ability to declare a class closed which will allow for Moose to cache
...yeah, I was wondering if that closed-ness feature was a MOP-ism or a
Moosism.
Of course,
BTW: Perl.com editor chromatic wrote up a review of Class::MOP for
those who aren't familiar with that package like I was.
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/06/cpan_module_review_classmop.html
tim/
-
Web Archive:
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Did anyone (Mark?) look at the performance hit that Class::MOP will cause?
I've only taken a quick look, but it looks like the total user time to run test
suite goes up nearly 50% with this patch.
I hadn't done that, but it's certainly worth doing. I did just a few
There are ways to improve the caching used in Class::MOP - I can see if
$work will allow Stevan (author of Class::MOP and Moose) and I to work on
some details.
One thing I know that he and nothingmuch have been working on in Moose is
the ability to declare a class closed which will allow for
