On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Bruce W. Hoylman wrote:
> I see Apache::RegistryNG @ISA Apache::PerlRun. Furthermore, perldoc
> Apache::PerlRun states the following:
>
> The Apache::Registry handler is much faster than
> Apache::PerlRun. However, Apache::PerlRun is much faster
> than CGI ...
>
> This would seem to imply Apache::Registry is also much faster than
> Apache::RegistryNG. Apart from the filename vs. uri namespace
> difference and the OO nature of Apache::RegistryNG, are there any
> compelling reasons to consider RegistryNG over Registry?
the docs are refering to Apache::Registry::handler vs.
Apache::PerlRun::handler. aside from the handler(), the rest of
Apache::PerlRun contains all the functionality of Apache::Registry broken
down into several subclass-able methods. this methods are used by
Apache::RegistryNG to implement the exact same functionality of
Apache::Registry, using the Apache::PerlRun methods.
Apache::PerlRun::handler should probably be in another namespace to avoid
this confusion.
there is no compelling reason to use RegistryNG over Registry, unless you
want to do add/change functionality of the existing Registry.pm. for
example, Apache::RegistryBB (bare-bones) is another subclass that skips
all the stat()s.
