Re: [Catalyst] RunAfterRequest/delayed Catalyst view

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Tomas Doran wrote: > > On 30 Apr 2010, at 07:00, Steve Kleiman wrote: > >> Thanks in advance for any insights. >> > > No ideas I'm afraid. > > However I don't see any reason why this couldn't / shouldn't work.. > > Could you work up some test cases (or a very sma

Re: [Catalyst] RunAfterRequest/delayed Catalyst view

On 30 Apr 2010, at 07:00, Steve Kleiman wrote: Thanks in advance for any insights. No ideas I'm afraid. However I don't see any reason why this couldn't / shouldn't work.. Could you work up some test cases (or a very small test app) for either View::Email or ::RunAfterRequest which demonst

[Catalyst] RunAfterRequest/delayed Catalyst view

I posted this a while ago but I think it got lost in that tumultuous "Alternatives to Catalyst" melee. Figured I'd try again now that things have calmed down a bit Using Catalyst::Plugin::RunAfterRequest to handle some housekeeping after I've executed $c->detach. Works great, but... What I

[Catalyst] Job posting!

Hey Catalyst / DBIC folks, I am leaving my job and, thus, my position is becoming available! The title is QA Tools Developer - you would be working on custom internal apps at Riverbed Technology, a network acceleration company in downtown San Francisco, CA. Good company, good people, good loca

Re: [Catalyst] Oddness with Catalyst::Plugin::Session::Store::DBIC

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:04:38PM +0700, Ben van Staveren wrote: > Hi Tom, > >>*Cough* remind me not to answer emails late at night :D > >> > >>Okay I've got the following: > >> > >>Catalyst 5.80022 > >>Static::Simple 0.29 > >>Session 0.27 > >>Session::Store::DBIC 0.11 > > > >Thanks. I'll try to l

Re: [Catalyst] Oddness with Catalyst::Plugin::Session::Store::DBIC

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:10:29AM +0800, Moritz Onken wrote: > Still the same behaviour. See my reply downthread for how I'd recommend trying to diagnose this. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://

Re: [Catalyst] Oddness with Catalyst::Plugin::Session::Store::DBIC

Hi Tom, *Cough* remind me not to answer emails late at night :D Okay I've got the following: Catalyst 5.80022 Static::Simple 0.29 Session 0.27 Session::Store::DBIC 0.11 Thanks. I'll try to look into this at the NPW hackathon this weekend. Awesome. I'm trying to find a little spare time at $j

[Catalyst] Re: Alternatives to Catalyst ?

* Oleg Pronin [2010-04-29 11:10]: > Maybe it is not the bottleneck, but how many places do we have > like this that are "not a bottleneck" ? maybe the sum of all > these "mini" mistakes is the bottleneck ? Maybe, maybe, maybe. Stop guessing. Profile the code in question. Here is my experience –

Re: [Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

I was kind of hoping this thread would get to more helpful issues. It did, and thanks. It's hard for us to profile a running application, for several reasons. (1) there is a web server in the way, and (2) the storage requirements (and to some extent performance) are a hit. Also, a management

Re: [Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

Carl Johnstone wrote: NYTProf profile or it didn't happen :-) Is there any "best practices" or hints page on how to use Catalyst and NYTprof? I haven't used it before and I wonder if people include it into a running catalyst application (and then periodically review results in some way) or

Re: [Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

On 29/04/10 19:06, Oleg Pronin wrote: Maybe it is not the bottleneck, but how many places do we have like this that are "not a bottleneck" ? maybe the sum of all these "mini" mistakes is the bottleneck ? Hi Oleg, Do you have an application which *has* a bottleneck at the moment? If so, c

Re: [Catalyst] Oddness with Catalyst::Plugin::Session::Store::DBIC

On 29 Apr 2010, at 02:50, Ben van Staveren wrote: Which is great. But a lot of users leave Static::Simple loaded, so while it's not going to bother you it -will- bother them. So, in the name of paying karma forwards, any chance I could have the versions anyway please? *Cough* remind me

Re: [Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

Oleg Pronin wrote: > Maybe it is not the bottleneck, but how many places do we have > like this that are "not a bottleneck" ? maybe the sum of all these > "mini" mistakes is the bottleneck ? NYTProf profile or it didn't happen :-) Carl ___ List: C

Re: [Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

On 29/04/2010, at 7:06 PM, Oleg Pronin wrote: > [...] >Maybe it is not the bottleneck, but how many places do we have > like this that are "not a bottleneck" ? maybe the sum of all these > "mini" mistakes is the bottleneck ? I've done some research on this topic, not from a computer science P

Re: [Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

On 29 Apr 2010, at 10:06, Oleg Pronin wrote: > >Maybe it is not the bottleneck, but how many places do we have > like this that are "not a bottleneck" ? maybe the sum of all these > "mini" mistakes is the bottleneck ? Do the profiling, answer the "maybe" question. - Mark __

Re: [Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

1) param is called often several times (in auto/end etc) 2) The question is not about params, but about accessors speed at all. If all acessors were XSAccessor for example (catalyst makes a lot of calls ->stack/action/dispatcher , etc internally during request), then your overall speed would be 600