On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:23:38 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Please let me raise a question. > > In practice, people who can program in other phases usually can > 1) program directly in C module; and 2) find that C provides > much better a solution. > > For example, the authz phase in the dual-Apache setup. > Here the static files are served by the light Apache. A C > autenz handler is usually more efficient and may be a must. > > The same is true for the URL re-writing phase. Most likely we > need the URL to be re-written for both dynamic contents and > static files. > > So, while mod_perl is able to handle other phases, in practice, > one may still need to go back to the C API for the best results. > > In the content phase, I think the OO programming, and so > the MVC (Model-View-Control) concept, makes mod_perl > much better a choice than PHP for large projects.
I think you will find that mod_perl code is roughly the same speed as a comporable C Apache module. Since mod_perl holds all of the code in memory we don't have a fork/compile/excute problem which is why most people think C is way faster than Perl. I've seen non response phase handlers, written in mod_perl, handle better than commercial C modules. I'm curious why you think a C module would be a better solution? --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wiles.org --------------------------------- -- Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html
