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.

Reply via email to