> > So it is only 50% faster on the cached in memory templates. It is > > actually slower if you are using XS. If you are using cached in memory > > templates, you are going to see the least amount of return from using > > CGI::Ex::Template. > > I would expect any TT user concerned about performance to be using > cached templates and the XS stash.
I think most people are concerned about performance - even if it is a second thought. I think there are plenty of people who don't have a choice about how the server they're using is configured. I do agree though that those who are really really concerned about the performance have tuned their code to the nth level. > > The interesting thing is that TT in memory and using XS is only 100% > > faster than CGI::Ex::Template getting a new object each time. Without > > XS, TT in memory is only 40% faster than CGI::Ex::Template getting a new > > object each time. > > Sounds like it could be great for people who are stuck using CGI. Yup. :) > TT > doesn't perform well without the cache. Bare TT does OK. Stash XS and cached templates just do better. CGI::Ex::Template just is a step towards making them not be as necessary. Of course I don't think there is anything keeping somebody from writing the get_variable and set_variable routines of CGI::Ex::Template in xs. That would be interesting. Paul _______________________________________________ templates mailing list [email protected] http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
