On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > > wow. template toolkil took a big hit, there. (no mod_perl on
> > > this list? hmm!)
> >
> > This benchmark can be very non-representive. If you don't know how to
> > optimize each and every "thing" under test, you end up with unfair
> > benchmark a
"Tom Lancaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Absolutely. But I'd like to bring up something I've noticed in
benchmarking
> 'real' sites: many, if not all, of the templating solutions appear to
> parse the whole of an html page. This is at least true of Apache::ASP and
> HTML::Mason, which I have u
> > wow. template toolkil took a big hit, there. (no mod_perl on
> > this list? hmm!)
>
> This benchmark can be very non-representive. If you don't know how to
> optimize each and every "thing" under test, you end up with unfair
> benchmark and come to potentially wrong conclusions. Take TT, add c
> This benchmark can be very non-representive. If you don't know how to
> optimize each and every "thing" under test, you end up with unfair
> benchmark and come to potentially wrong conclusions. Take TT, add compiled
> template caching on the disk and shared TT object and I bet TT won't be at
> t
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, will trillich wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 06:48:38AM +0200, Gerald Richter wrote:
> > > regarding the tools that dovetail into the mod_perl paradigm,
> > > who's got a comparison over relative performance (and other
> > > strengths/weaknesses) of various templating method
