Heh - you're on the wrong track. The whole quote below is part of a
double-quoted string, and each backslash is just to put a literal $ into
the code. It will be eval'ed later.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (raptor) wrote:
!!! Is it possible to have reference on the left side of the equation !!!
I've
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Philip Mak wrote:
In the recent Hello World 2000 benchmark posted by Joshua Chamas, mod_perl
handler was shown to be even faster than static HTML (at least for running
hello world), and twice as fast as using Apache::Registry to run a perl
script.
I honestly think
!!! Is it possible to have reference on the left side of the equation !!!
I've tried this to alias HASH :) but didn't succeeded...
sub {
my \$hash = shift; # $_[0] is \%myhash
};
Yes I know that there is aliasing : my *hash = \%{$hashref}..
And I see that here u use : \$r-blah
...Never mind
In the recent Hello World 2000 benchmark posted by Joshua Chamas, mod_perl
handler was shown to be even faster than static HTML (at least for running
hello world), and twice as fast as using Apache::Registry to run a perl
script.
Does this mean that if there's a heavily used script on my system
Does this mean that if there's a heavily used script on my system that
needs to be VERY fast, then it may be worth making it into a mod_perl
handler?
Not unless you get astonishing amounts of traffic and your script does
almost nothing. These are very simple test cases, so they exaggerate
Philip Mak wrote:
In the recent Hello World 2000 benchmark posted by Joshua Chamas, mod_perl
handler was shown to be even faster than static HTML (at least for running
hello world), and twice as fast as using Apache::Registry to run a perl
script.
Does this mean that if there's a heavily
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Mak) wrote:
Does this mean that if there's a heavily used script on my system that
needs to be VERY fast, then it may be worth making it into a mod_perl
handler? What are the caveats of using mod_perl handlers instead of normal
scripts?
The basic idea is this: with a
