On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Perrin Harkins wrote:
wow. template toolkil took a big hit, there. (no mod_perl on
this list? hmm!)
This benchmark can be very non-representive. If you don't know how to
optimize each and every thing under test, you end up with unfair
benchmark and come to
wow. template toolkil took a big hit, there. (no mod_perl on
this list? hmm!)
This benchmark can be very non-representive. If you don't know how to
optimize each and every thing under test, you end up with unfair
benchmark and come to potentially wrong conclusions. Take TT, add compiled
Tom Lancaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absolutely. But I'd like to bring up something I've noticed in
benchmarking
'real' sites: many, if not all, of the templating solutions appear to
parse the whole of an html page. This is at least true of Apache::ASP and
HTML::Mason, which I have used. Is
This benchmark can be very non-representive. If you don't know how to
optimize each and every thing under test, you end up with unfair
benchmark and come to potentially wrong conclusions. Take TT, add compiled
template caching on the disk and shared TT object and I bet TT won't be at
the
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 06:48:38AM +0200, Gerald Richter wrote:
regarding the tools that dovetail into the mod_perl paradigm,
who's got a comparison over relative performance (and other
strengths/weaknesses) of various templating methods?
There are various discussions on the mod_perl
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, will trillich wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 06:48:38AM +0200, Gerald Richter wrote:
regarding the tools that dovetail into the mod_perl paradigm,
who's got a comparison over relative performance (and other
strengths/weaknesses) of various templating methods?
