[Catalyst] OT: mod_fastcgi vs. mod_perl (was uri_for() question)

[Christopher H. Laco]

Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> 
> On 27 Mar 2006, at 22:55, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> 
>> Scott Karns wrote:
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> If you don't mind, I (and other relative neophytes,
>>> I'm sure) would like to hear you and anyone else
>>> interested in chiming in, expand on your preference
>>> for mod_fastcgi over mod_perl when running on apache.
>>
>> I'll bite. Mod_perl, while it has its place, is way too complicated for
>> most setups. There are a number of things that can bite you in the ass
>> for no good reason...memory footprint, mem shareing, global/local
>> variables, etc.
> 
> Whereas those of us who have been wrangling mod_perl for a long time
> feel exactly the same way about FCGI.
> 
> mod_perl is about more than running pseudo CGI scripts. It's about
> intercepting any of up to a dozen phases of an HTTP transaction[0].


OK, I'll rephrase. In a Catalyst MVC Framework world, mod_perl is
complete overkill for a Catalyst application. :-)

> 
> Put it another way, there's a huge fat O'Reilly on mod_perl, is there
> one on FCGI?
> 
> [0] Bad word, but all I can think of right now.
> 
> --Dave Hodgkinson - Music photography
> http://www.hodgkinson.org/
> 
> 
> 

I do use mod_perl. Hell, I cut my teeth on AxKit and custom handlers.
I wasn't saying mod_perl sucks and it should die, just that when it
comes to Cat stuff, it's a waste of resources for no good reason.

-=Chris

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.rawmode.org/pipermail/catalyst/attachments/20060327/ffc9f15e/attachment.pgp