Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: More than mod_cgi less than mod_perl.

by techcode (Hermit)
on Jun 07, 2005 at 21:41 UTC ( #464465=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: More than mod_cgi less than mod_perl.
in thread More than mod_cgi less than mod_perl.

You summed it up very good. And I agree, especialy with the 4th.

First off, any module that requires the perl source code and/or libperl to build all its parts is never going to be in the default apache configuration.
The way I was thinking is exactly that.

That's why I said that basicly there is no other thing than mod_cgi and mod_perl. And when I checked the FastCGI it did required you to change the code of the scripts that previosly runed under mod_cgi.

Anyway, since I got you all interested in this, the reason why I started even thinking about all this is that many people have a (wrong) belif that Perl is slow... Well, slower than PHP.

Of course Perl is not slower than PHP, and thing that makes it slow is CGI itself.

Other thing they say about Perl is that it's hard to set up the scripts (set the right path and chmod the files).

So I started thinking how this could be improved. And mentioned Apache as the most used web server (also has mod_perl) - of course if solution could be aplied to anyother web server, even better.

I just want to see more people using Perl on the web (for start).


Comment on Re^2: More than mod_cgi less than mod_perl.
Re^3: More than mod_cgi less than mod_perl.
by Gilimanjaro (Hermit) on Jun 07, 2005 at 22:05 UTC

    CGI itself is not that slow, but the overhead of loading the perl interpreter and modules is.

    You may want to look at Juerd's PLP and use it to demonstrate to people that Perl kicks PHP's ass... As a sidenote, it only performs that well under mod_perl... ;)

Re^3: More than mod_cgi less than mod_perl.
by Cap'n Steve (Friar) on Jun 08, 2005 at 06:37 UTC
    I agree that Perl is starting to gain a bad reputation on the web. mod_php is safe to use on shared hosting and mod_perl is not, which leads some people (even fairly experienced developers) to believe that PHP is just naturally faster. I've heard that mod_perl2 solves this with its perchild MPM, which (I think) gives each script its own namespace and runs it as its owner, but I don't expect speedy adoption.
      Yeah! That's my point!

      Still, putting it in own namespace doesn't matter much, you could still be able to access other namespaces, right? So it still isn't shared hosting safe.

      Alto when I think about it, it wont be able to mess with anything else's, than what is already yours.

      If mod_perl2 is usable for shared hostings, than great! But is it suitable for them considering other things (memory usage for instance)?

      Still mod_perl requires from you to be a good programmer, and even if it would be shared hosting safe, it wouldn't be for the "masses".

      Alto that way, we (we - as somewhat good programmers :) could write applications for a mass usage on shared hosting - which would be better than where we are now.

      And "masses" couldn't brake anything even if they try writing some bad code, right?
        I think this version of mod_perl does address the shared hosting issue. The page I read (which I can't find right now) compared it to PHP's safe mode and also said it was a replacement for suexec. By changing the MPM, you can still offer all the power that the current mod_perl allows. I don't know anything about performance for either version.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://464465]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (4)
As of 2014-09-24 00:39 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (243 votes), past polls