-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi all
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the
>>> existing behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a
>>> WSGI pipeline doesn't gain you much speed (but it is not a
>> loss, either).
>>> If, for a given application, you can relax the BBB
>> requirement, then
>>> some performance wins are available via WSGI which can't be made in
>>> the monolithic publisher (dropping out features by removing the
>>> middleware layer).
>> As for Grok I hope we can break some backwards compatibility
>> and get some larger performance speedups. We definitely need
>> to aggressively keep moving forward in this area. Not even
>> primarily for speed gains but
>> also for comprehensibility; I find Chris's "what's it
>> doing" report far more worrying than differences in speed at
>> this point:
>> This is why zope.pipeline is such an important effort to me.
>> Not that it will immediately make things better, but it would
>> hopefully open up a path to move the Zope Framework forward
>> in this area.
> I absolutly agree!
> As far as I can see, the repoze sample doesn't open a ZODB
> which makes it not really comparable.
I think you've made Chris' point for him: nothing about the application
being tested *requires* that there be a ZODB connection open; Grok's
design forces opening one unconditionally, which is a layer of
complexity which *can't be turned off.* The "conceptual" overhead of
each of the frameworks is at least as important as the performance overhead.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -