CGI Development - Multiple Entry or Dispatch
david_dick at iprimus.com.au
Mon Nov 4 13:02:02 CST 2002
on a side note, how many people actually use 'real' PerlHandlers for
their web applications and how many develop CGI scripts and smack 'em
along with Apache::Registry? i just like using Apache::Registry because
it lets me debug in a more controlled fashion and it's more portable (to
what i don't know :)). Anyone prefer using the 'real' PerlHandlers?
Paul Fenwick wrote:
>G'day Scotty / Melb.PM,
> Golly, my answer to this question is a great big "it depends".
>If the project involves mod_perl or CGI::Fast, then the dispatch
>mechansim as some obvious advantages. Modules only need to be
i thought that mod_perl meant that regardless of how many times a module
was used, it was only loaded once?
>a single database connection can be used,
doesn't Apache::DBI type solutions solve this regardless of whether
multiple entry/dispatch is being used?
>can be cached between requests.
don't understand this one either. sorry. :) could you give an example of
why you can't cache with the multiple entry points?
> Of course, if your various functions have little overlap
>with each other, then you may only have a negligible speed saving
>from using dispatch vs multiple methods. Outside of a mod_perl/fastcgi
>environment, dispatch becomes slower as there's more code to
>load in and parse.
> At the end of the day, unless one method gives you a
>*significant* saving or advantage over the other, then I can't
>say I have an opinion either way. I've personally used both
>methodologies, and continue to do so. Usually I'm aiming for
>whichever approach gives the most clean, maintainable, and efficient
>code. Most of the time I use both methods -- dispatch for
>closely related features, and multiple entry for widely
> All the best,
More information about the Melbourne-pm