Donald Ball (balld@webslingerZ.com)
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:22:35 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Torsten Neuer wrote:
> According to Mark Foster:
> >Servlets are more efficient than CGI, because a separate process does not
> >have to be spawned for each request.
> This is true, but not for all cases. It is limited to those cases where
> the overhead of starting up the CGI process is not recovered by a faster
> execution of the application requested.
> Servlets are *interpreted* (even though they might be byte-compiled) which
> makes them quite inefficient in general. Any CGI written in Ada, C, C++
> or other languages which are compiled into native code of the hosting server
> will outperform a servlet in all cases where the execution speed makes up
> for the additional load time. And this is true for most applications that
> go beyond a web-counter or a simple FORMs handler.
That's not entirely true. We all know about JIT's, and there are at least
two programs that can compile java bytecode to native code (TowerJ and
cygnus' libjg). Even if you're restricted to interpreted bytecode, if
programmer time costs more than hardware or if you're developing on one
platform and deploying on another, servlets may be good solution. Servlets
also allow you to cache and share resources more easily than most other
server-side development environments.
> However, it is more often a matter of taste and even if the method chosen
> is slower might pay off with regards to site maintenance. This depends upon
> what people are working at the site and what kind of software is used there
> in general. Btw are there many methods of reducing the overhead of Perl based
> CGI (like Apache's mod_perl).
To unsubscribe from the htdig mailing list, send a message to
email@example.com containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the SUBJECT of the message.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Jun 01 1999 - 10:41:10 PDT