On Aug 29, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
No. However, I have spoken with the author about it a bit.
Depending on
your use, it seems that HTML::Template::JIT may be a bit faster,
and has a
decent test suite, which might ease your mind. It is more
compatible with
HTML::Template. However, this is based on fairly minimal benchmarking
that the author and I did. I can't vouch for the safety or non-
safety of
it under mod_perl.
Just a note. I went CRAZY for speed a few weeks ago, and looking
for stripped down templating engines that used valid documents as
their source.
The benchmarks I made were amazing - HTML::Template::JIT was several
times faster than many other options, and 100x faster than Petal.
(it was about 2x slower than regexing template files using
TipJar::Template::fill)
Then a friend pointed out 2 things:
1 - the processing was happing so fast, thats its pretty much within
a margin of error
2- even the slowest templating option - petal - was a fraction of the
speed of my business logic and db connectivity
i wound up using the slowest system i found, petal, because it gave
me what i needed most - valid documents that are easily editable.
as a bonus, petal is a TAL implemtation, which means the templates
will work in several other language implementations - meaning i'm not
stuck with perl forever. (meaning i'm with perl by choice, and if
another tool can do certain portions of my code faster, I can use it
instead, without redoing massive amounts of templating stuff)
Usually if you get no answer it means no one else is using it.
Indeed.
