Brown trousers time :~
jacqui.caren at ntlworld.com
Thu Oct 11 08:41:19 BST 2007
Lyle - CosmicPerl.com wrote:
> David Cantrell wrote:
>> Assuming that FastCGI == CGI without the compilation overhead each time,
>> then no.
> I found this,
> I think FastCGI is more like mod_perl than cgi, it's processes don't get
> destroyed, etc.
I am afraid you have the wrong idea about mod_perl.
mod_perl does not just allow you to run persistent CGi "scripts" it ties
into a wide range of handlers within Apache, allowing you to roll your
own authen handlers, chained output filters etc.
Unlike *CGI where all of this app specific code would *have* to be
written in a single script, the code can be modularised and plumbed
into apache, with configuration - it can even be enabled and disabled
to change behaviour!
IMHO This makes testing *much* simpler.
As some folks have already stated mod_perl can be major overkill.
From the very copious perl.apache.org documentation I hope you can see why.
P.s. we run on a pool of machines minimun quad core 16Gig of RAM.
Even with cheap hardware and net bandwidth running costs over a few
years soon exceeds development costs.
More information about the london.pm