> From: Michael Graham
> I've been using PersistentPerl a lot too, and I'm also
> worried that it's no longer supported. I guess it will be
> hard for the community to take over this project, since it's
> written in C and probably does scary embedded Perl
> interpreter stuff. Maybe it is fi
> > Not common. I would suggest that people who have to use
> > shared hosting should consider using SpeedyCGI.
>
> Alas, PersistentPerl (nee SpeedyCGI) no longer seems to be supported.
> Questions to the mail list by myself and others go unanswered, which is
> mighty unfortunate, as PersistentPe
> From: Perrin Harkins
> Sent: Friday, 9 December 2005 10:04
>
> Not common. I would suggest that people who have to use
> shared hosting should consider using SpeedyCGI.
Alas, PersistentPerl (nee SpeedyCGI) no longer seems to be supported.
Questions to the mail list by myself and others go un
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 20:43 +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> How common is it for shared hosting packages to come with FastCGI or
> modperl support?
Not common. I would suggest that people who have to use shared hosting
should consider using SpeedyCGI. It's more adaptable to those
environments. Bu
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 19:32 +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Under CGI, wouldn't you have no choice?
Very true. Under CGI, H::T::Compiled and H::T::JIT do very well, while
TT slows down considerably. People who have to use CGI but are still
concerned about performance would do well with one of thes
On 12/8/05, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 18:24 +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> > Also, at least according to the HT::Compiled benchmark, it's about 10
> > times faster than TT.
>
> It's 3 times faster. By default, the benchmark tests creating a new
> Template obj
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 18:24 +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Also, at least according to the HT::Compiled benchmark, it's about 10
> times faster than TT.
It's 3 times faster. By default, the benchmark tests creating a new
Template object every time, which no one should ever do. Switching from
the
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 15:02 +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> My advocacy for H::T::Compiled is more about the features it adds than
> its excellent performance, or the exact current state.
I can certainly understand wanting those features, but they just look
like playing catch-up with TT to me. If y
