On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 08:40:52AM -0400, Matthew Pitts wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 01:18 +0100, Matt S Trout wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:55:38PM -0700, Dylan Vanderhoof wrote:
> > > Oh, missed this email. Yours looks better than mine. =)
> >
> > Except for being a performance hit on every single method call on $c
> > (there's
> > a reason I keep telling people not to make everything a plugin ...).
>
> Am I correct in saying that the NEXT overhead is proportional to the
> number of packages in the ISA chain and not the number of methods the
> plugins override? If so, then if I were to bring all my plugins into one
> big "framework" plugin would that improve the NEXT performance?
Or you could avoid making them plugins. 9 times out of 10 they should've
been a model, a controller base class or an external utility module - see
the ExtendingCatalyst POD for more info.
--
Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project?
Technical Director Want a managed development or deployment platform?
Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Contact mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for a quote
http://chainsawblues.vox.com/ http://www.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
