in reply to Is it wise to dynamically load modules?

A few comments:
  1. Did you make the decision to not load unused functionality based on Benchmarking or was it an ephemeral "I don't wanna"? This sounds like premature optimization, to me ...
  2. Abigail-II is right - the system you have sounds very maintainable ... it's well factored - each extension does one thing, only one thing, and (presumably) does it well ... What's the problem?
  3. I have written something very similar to this for one of my current clients (with a little more pizazz). I load all my modules and it just runs. Optimization comes later, when SLA's are being violated ...
  4. If you absolutely need more performance, why not eliminate the extra Perl interpreter every run and make this into a web-type deal using Apache/mod_perl? You have a script that calls a CGI through port 80 ... that would be optimized ...

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brain-meltingly complicated. -- TheDamian, Exegesis 6

... strings and arrays will suffice. As they are easily available as native data types in any sane language, ... - blokhead, speaking on evolutionary algorithms

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

  • Comment on Re: Is it wise to dynamically load modules?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Is it wise to dynamically load modules?
by kurt_kober (Chaplain) on Oct 14, 2003 at 17:54 UTC
    1. It was the ephemeral "I don't wanna" combined with a dose of "Gee it sure would be clever if I could do this".
    2. See my answer to Abigail. I may have--ahem--overstated the difficulty of maintenance somewhat.
    4. I would do that, except the environment isn't running Apache, I'm leaving my current assignment in three weeks, and I'm way too dumb to install Apache and learn CGI in that amount of time. :)

    Thanks very much!