On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Roger Espel Llima wrote:
> I'm developping yet another toolkit for templating under mod_perl (don't
> flame me YET, it does things that are significantly different from
> Mason, Embperl and others: namely completely separation of data and
> code, good multilingual support, and a reverse-include-based (aka OO
> without code) component model).
Sounds like Template Toolkit to me. Or maybe even Apache::Taco (now
defunct?) which worked by calling external functions. Have fun developing
it, but think long and hard before you put another templating module on
CPAN.
> So, if there's a serious argument that compiling to perl code is better,
> I'm interested. So far, I'm a bit doubtful that it's worth it, esp. for
> a large site (where you'd spend a lot of time on the perl compilation
> phase, reading perl files over and over; unless someone figures a way to
> store bytecode?).
This being mod_perl, you only have to compile the perl code once per
process (or once at startup).
There is a situation when compiling to perl is usually worse. When you're
just doing simple SSI-ish stuff, with lots of unique pages, turning every
page into a perl sub becomes a memory hog which outweighs the speed
benefit. That's when simpler techniques like the stuff used in
Apache::SSI come out ahead.
- Perrin
