[Catalyst] Alternatives to DBIx?
jshirley at gmail.com
Sun Apr 18 00:44:06 GMT 2010
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Lyle <webmaster at cosmicperl.com> wrote:
> Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>> But in that case you probably shouldn't be interested in using
>> Template-Toolkit nor Catalyst, because they also have their overhead, and
>> the other higher level modules used for accessing the database have their
>> overhead also and the best solution would be DBI.
> You've literally just spelled out why my preference is CGI::Application,
> HTML::Template and DBI. Not knocking Catalyst, I could see it's benefits.
> I guess it all depends on the what kind of websites you are working on, or
> what your customers expect.
Very true, which is why I use Catalyst and DBIC.
I've had Catalyst+DBIC serving 10+ million hits a day. They expected
fast performance, so I built and scaled accordingly. It worked
I've worked on some other high availability sites on Catalyst, with
high traffic. Never had much of a problem getting good, quality
results that have low deviation on performance.
In addition, Catalyst being so flexible allows us to put in a great
number of things with very little developer time -- hardware is much
cheaper than a developer, and when you get to high end numbers that
really adds up.
If your developers cost less than your servers, raw DBI is probably a
quite adequate solution. Glad someone is doing it, because I wouldn't
touch those jobs.
More information about the Catalyst