A. Pagaltzis ha scritto:
* Marcello Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-15 14:15]:
I usually do Cygwin/X, xhost +, then ssh into linux box, export
DISPLAY and type startkde.
You know that you can have SSH forward X so that none of the
extra steps are necessary? (Plus your session is encrypted
On Monday 15 January 2007 18:45, Jim Spath wrote:
> I am running:
> Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS
> Perl 5.8.7 # old
> Catalyst 5.61 # old
> DBIx::Class 0.07005
> Template 2.14# old
>
> I'm guessing that the tutorial is assuming a more recent version of
> Cata
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the note. Yes, that does sound like version issues. I'll
do some research and see if there is a way to have it work on older
versions, but that can get sticky at time.
Thanks,
Kennedy
On 1/15/07, Jim Spath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I am using Catalyst + DBIx::Class f
Hi,
I am using Catalyst + DBIx::Class for the first time and was running
through the tutorial located here:
http://search.cpan.org/~jrockway/Catalyst-Manual-5.700501/lib/Catalyst/Manual/Tutorial/CatalystBasics.pod
I ran into a couple of problems, both having to do with the example
Controller
* Daniel McBrearty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-15 20:35]:
> On 1/15/07, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 11:35 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote:
> >> To summarize (again): The benchmark doesn't benchmark
> >> Catalyst, only it's dispatcher
> >
> >I think it'
* Daniel McBrearty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-15 20:40]:
> I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was
> done well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the
> basis of such a benchmark, but it's a factor to throw into the
> mix.
Because as long as the framework is
Le 15 janv. 07 à 21:51, Christopher Hicks a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:27:08PM +0100, Daniel McBrearty wrote:
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was done
well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the basis of
such a benchmark, but it's a factor to
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:27:08PM +0100, Daniel McBrearty wrote:
> I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was done
> well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the basis of
> such a benchmark, but it's a factor to throw into the mix.
What about the benchmark for h
Whereas features are extremely important in any framework used, speed
is still an important thing when you're considering how much hardware to
purchase and how you'll be deploying based on your expected load(and god
forbid you turned into the next myspace, then it really matters). And
yes, ha
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was done
well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the basis of
such a benchmark, but it's a factor to throw into the mix.
On 1/15/07, Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 15 January 2007 06:19, A. Pagaltz
they are not, but when you choose a framework you don't just choose a
dispatcher. You choose all the other design options that go with it.
On 1/15/07, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 11:35 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote:
> To summarize (again): The benchma
On 15/01/07, Jonas Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14/01/07, Ash Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jonas Alves wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I was starting to put authentication in a Reaction application that
> i'm
> > developing when I saw that Reaction has this classes:
> >
> > Reaction::Inte
* Marcello Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-15 14:15]:
> I usually do Cygwin/X, xhost +, then ssh into linux box, export
> DISPLAY and type startkde.
You know that you can have SSH forward X so that none of the
extra steps are necessary? (Plus your session is encrypted and
the X server isn’t op
On Monday 15 January 2007 06:19, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> I don’t know what the point of benchmarking frameworks against
> each other is, particularly for such an unrepresentative case.
Ad impressions.
--
package JAPH;use Catalyst qw/-Debug/;($;=JAPH)->config(name => do {
$,.=reverse qw[Jonathan ts
On Sunday 14 January 2007 09:26, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is ablog I just found. Is it true that Catalyst is so slow comparing
> with other frameworks?
> http://letsgetdugg.com/category/rails
Rails can do nothing* faster than Catalyst. Good for it.
* Dispatch to an action that retu
On 1/15/07, Octavian Rasnita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's why I was curious and I have sent to the list that blog with the
comparison between RoR and Catalyst.
You need to keep in mind that sometimes it's easier to optimize things
for benchmarks than for real world applications. That happe
From: "Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't think anyone disputes that Perl (and Python and Java) are much
faster than Ruby. You can find benchmarks showing that all over the
web. The RoR boosters are usually the ones on the defensive over
performance, saying that language performance do
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 14:51 +0200, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> I would like to say that it is not true, but I cannot see any benchmarks
I don't think anyone disputes that Perl (and Python and Java) are much
faster than Ruby. You can find benchmarks showing that all over the
web. The RoR boosters a
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 13:24 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote:
> Daniel McBrearty wrote:
>
> >> Personally, I don't care about templating and ORM benchmarks,
> >
> > why not?
>
> Well, templating benchmarks maybe, but for an ORM I just have the
> feeling the larger factor is how you use it,
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 11:35 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote:
> To summarize (again): The benchmark doesn't benchmark Catalyst, only
> it's dispatcher
I think it's a lame benchmark too, but isn't a dispatcher mostly what
Catalyst is? DBIx::Class and TT are not Catalyst, as people often
ment
On 1/15/07, Victor Igumnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that is for custom JS code you have added. The default javascript
code from formbuilder is omitted when you iterate through the fields.
again, I think you are incorrect or I'm misunderstanding what you are
saying. I have no customer JS code
On 14/01/07, Ash Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jonas Alves wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was starting to put authentication in a Reaction application that i'm
> developing when I saw that Reaction has this classes:
>
> Reaction::InterfaceModel::Action::DBIC::Role::CheckUniques;
> Reaction::InterfaceM
Daniel McBrearty wrote:
> maybe. for such an exercise though, you would have to trust the
> implementors of submission to use the best tools available for that
> framework, and to use them well.
So, there's one best template and one best model for Catalyst? :)
> I wouldn't see much point to tryi
maybe. for such an exercise though, you would have to trust the
implementors of submission to use the best tools available for that
framework, and to use them well.
I wouldn't see much point to trying to do something like this without
having some tests that take a look at how well db access is pe
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> I have seen fewer and fewer people start learning perl, and more become
> interested about Python and Ruby (not mentioning those that like C#,
> Java, C...).
> They can say that their preferate language is better, that it is newer
> and that it took what's the best from p
From: "Carl Johnstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now to say the truth, I won't use RoR because I don't know Ruby, but I
want to know which are the advantages and disadvantages of Catalyst
comparing with other frameworks.
The most important advantage/disadvantage *to you* must be that Catalyst
is P
Len Jaffe ha scritto:
On 12/22/06, Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically, I use Windows as a $300 dumb terminal. (A slow and
virus-prone
dumb terminal.)
Why not use X?
Having a winxp laptop (which is fine when developing in bed), and a
Linux mid-tower (sitting on the othe
For businesses the cost-to-develop and cost-to-maintain are usually more
important than handler performance.
The reason is that in most medium-large transactional web systems the
bottleneck is the database and not the framework.
A 10-100x slowdown in using an ORM or your framework of choice doesn'
Now to say the truth, I won't use RoR because I don't know Ruby, but I
want to know which are the advantages and disadvantages of Catalyst
comparing with other frameworks.
The most important advantage/disadvantage *to you* must be that Catalyst is
Perl and you know that, and RoR is Ruby and yo
Daniel McBrearty wrote:
>> Personally, I don't care about templating and ORM benchmarks,
>
> why not?
Well, templating benchmarks maybe, but for an ORM I just have the
feeling the larger factor is how you use it, not which.
--
# Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek
# Perl 5/Catalyst Developer in Hamburg,
* Carl Johnstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-15 13:15]:
> So surely you pick the framework that most helps you get things
> done rather than the one that works fastest?
Yes and no. Depends on what you’re doing. But in the case of
Catalyst, you’ll probably get much more speed out of switching
to a
Leandro Hermida >
Speed does matter and I believe the original thread question is a valid
one. Not everyone has the time or the know-how to do wheel reinvention
and write custom daemons (I know I don't). That's why people write
kernels and libraries and abstraction of lower level things so
e ability of the app to parse the uri, and process it.
I think this is a bit too simple. We should probably look at usual kinds
of URIs used in applications here.
/
/foo/bar/baz
/foo/1/bar/2/baz/3/4
/foo?bar=baz
...and probably more...
Also, there should be more than one action. I wo
Daniel McBrearty wrote:
> completely academic at the moment, but it would be interesting to see
> the benchmark comparison thing done properly. If it were, the way
> would be to specify a set of application functions, let people within
> the various projects implement them as they wish, then bench
Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> I did try my tests once again and they do indeed use WEBrick. I'll
> try to fix that. By the way - is it possible to deploy Catalyst over
> lighttpd?
FastCGI? :)
--
# Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek
# Perl 5/Catalyst Developer in Hamburg, Germany
{ EMail => ' [EMAIL PROT
On 15/01/07, Zbigniew Lukasiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did try my tests once again and they do indeed use WEBrick. I'll
try to fix that. By the way - is it possible to deploy Catalyst over
lighttpd?
Yup:
http://search.cpan.org/~mramberg/Catalyst-Runtime-5.7006/lib/Catalyst/Engine/F
completely academic at the moment, but it would be interesting to see
the benchmark comparison thing done properly. If it were, the way
would be to specify a set of application functions, let people within
the various projects implement them as they wish, then benchmark. I
suppose ...
so what wou
I did try my tests once again and they do indeed use WEBrick. I'll
try to fix that. By the way - is it possible to deploy Catalyst over
lighttpd?
--
Zbyszek
On 1/15/07, Victor Igumnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The main devs confirmed my results. Concerning your benchmark, I am
pretty sure y
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> Now to say the truth, I won't use RoR because I don't know Ruby, but I
> want to know which are the advantages and disadvantages of Catalyst
> comparing with other frameworks.
To summarize (again): The benchmark doesn't benchmark Catalyst, only
it's dispatcher (and as I
you honestly can't come to much of a conclusion about a test that
just hits the docroot over and over again, and sees how many
connections per second happen as a result. The test may say that one
aprticular aspect of RoR is quicker ... but it's not an aspect that
has a huge impact, given that the
From: "Carl Johnstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is it true that Catalyst is so slow comparing
with other frameworks?
Does it matter?
Of course it does.
If speed is so important, you should write your own custom httpd that does
exactly what you need in assembly language.
It is too hard to wr
Victor Igumnov wrote:
> Regardless, the benchmark was fairly simplistic to begin with which only
> stressed the dispatcher.
Didn't you say at one point you changed it to not use the templating
systems? Because it says
Document Path: /
and
sub default : Private {
my ( $self, $c
> From: Carl Johnstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 10:21
> To: catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
> Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
>
>
> > Is it true that Catalyst is so slow comparing with other frameworks?
>
> Does it matter?
>
> If speed
Problem solved... as supposed i was just sleeping ...
Reading again Perrin and Bbogdan messages led me to the solution.
Thanks again,
i.
Igor Longagnani ha scritto:
> As supposed i wastoo confused in my question, surely it wont get any
> better ..anyway let's try :)
>
> 1) I am into a controlle
... the "trick" is to 'use base Class::DBI' and not 'use base
C::Model::CDBI::Plain'
in the "root" pm. table.
--vb
On 1/14/07, vb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I use CDBI - not DBIC - and I have the "classical" tables User, Role,
UserRole
(Authentication Authentication::Store::DBIC
Authentication
Is it true that Catalyst is so slow comparing
with other frameworks?
Does it matter?
If speed is so important, you should write your own custom httpd that does
exactly what you need in assembly language.
Carl
___
List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.or
I don't want to start another heated debate - but if you say that
someone confirmed your results then please link to the relevant emails
(from the archive). I did follow the whole discussion but I don't
remember anyone reporting repeating the experiment, I also talked
about that on IRC and got th
The main devs confirmed my results. Concerning your benchmark, I am
pretty sure you screwed up some where, ie: running web brick in
development mode.
Regardless, the benchmark was fairly simplistic to begin with which
only stressed the dispatcher.
-Victor
On Jan 15, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Zb
I remember the discussion here - but it seems that nobody tried to
independently verify the results. I did compare Rails and Catalyst
and on my pretty standard Debian box Catalyst was about 50% faster
than Rails.
--
Zbyszek
On 1/14/07, Octavian Rasnita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Here is a
49 matches
Mail list logo
