I ran some tests myself to compare the two about 6 months ago. It was a
"real world" test (an average sized template from my project), and I did not
count the compilation time for the JIT files. The difference between
HTML::Template::JIT and HTML::Template::Compiled was very small; smaller
than the margin of error. Both of them were twice as fast as HTML::Template
with caching enabled, and about two and a half times faster than HT without
caching. I decided to use Compiled, because setting up correct file
permissions for JIT to work was a real pain, and JIT is very slow compiling
for the first request.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Octavian Rasnita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Clinton Gormley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Greenish"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "abhishek jain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<modperl@perl.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Which template engine is best to create a perl site
From: "Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry, but I suspect there's a mistake in your test. Possibly you
counted the time for JIT to do the initial compile, which is slow but
only happens once. HTML::Template::Compiled is fast, but it's not as
fast as JIT. I don't recommend actually using JIT though, since it's
harder to debug template coding mistakes with, and HTML::Template is
fast enough.
- Perrin
I have made the test using Apache's ab program, in a program that uses
mod_perl, and the pages were displayed much more faster when using
HTML::Template::Compiled.
This happened 3 or 4 years ago if I remember well, and the things might
have
changed since then.
Octavian
