cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diana Shannon <shan...@apache.org>
Subject Re: benchmarking Cocoon?
Date Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:42:10 GMT

On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 07:15  PM, Geoff Howard wrote:

> I put options in quotes because there aren't a lot of java-xml-
> xlst options out there.  Of course, it's almost impossible to
> do apples to apples comparisons against those, but it is
> reasonable to try.  If Cocoon takes 100 times as long on average
> per page, it's not a viable option for people.  If it's fast, but
> needs 10 times the memory, same thing (although memory is cheap now).

Although memory is cheaper, I think the cost of Cocoon/Java hosting, 
with higher RAM requirements, remains a limiting factor in adoption for 
small sites/limited budgets. In spite of the elegance of what Stephano 
recently demo'd for a small site on this list, for my low-budget 
clients, I'll probably stick with the current Forrest approach to 
generate static pages, with all dynamic capabilities implemented in 
php/perl/python (perhaps even generated by a modified Forrest). Clients 
simply don't understand -- no matter how clearly you explain the 
benefits -- why they should have to pay more than $10/month for hosting. 
Perhaps dynamic sites created with small budgets (by people like me who 
don't want to manage a server just to host client sites affordably) 
aren't Cocoon's niche.

> The first word out about Cocoon seems to be "neat but really slow
> and a memory hog".  I wasn't around then, but it sounds like that
> wasn't far off with Cocoon1.  If things have changed (as it sure
> seems it has), it wouldn't be bad for business to "publish" some
> kind of quantitative tests that prove that.

I encountered the "memory hog" accusation during the early days of 
Cocoon 2.0's release -- not during my Cocoon 1 days. I think a lot of 
this came from those early untamed samples. I think the impression 
persists.

Diana



Mime
View raw message