On Mar 13, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Ravi Mendis wrote: > > I recently evaluated a couple of these new app servers (for Scala) and i > found Play! to be the slowest (in terms of > scalability/concurrency)...considerably so. > In fact i think Play! was slower than WebObjects...[though i can't remember > for sure] > > IMO the primary motivation customers have for moving off WebObjects is its > inability to perform in an increasingly multi-core processor world.
You are referring to the single EOF lock? > If i were looking at something other than WO i would choose a platform that > is more concurrent not less. > > i.e for me there wouldn't be any point in choosing Play! over WO... > > On 11/03/2011, at 3:23 AM, Pascal Robert <[email protected]> wrote: >> I saw a demo of the Play! Framework (http://www.playframework.org) at a >> conference today, and I must say that it's the first time that I saw >> something that I really want to try out. It seems like a good mix between >> Ruby on Rails and WO, so I was wondering if someone else here have tried out >> that framework? -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
