[Seaside] Re: Performance

[goran.krampe at bluefish.se]

Hi!

Guenther Schmidt <gue.schmidt at web.de> wrote:
> Avi,
> 
> would you say that Seaside Apps can compete in performance with similar J2EE Apps?
> 
> Günther
> 
> PS. Now that I had to touch PHP again, after playing with Seaside, I got so disgusted that I decided to get myself a root server so that I can use Seaside and stuff PHP.

A few loose comments:

- Squeak is pretty nippy in itself. Last time I checked we still beat
Python hands down in general performance (check out SqyStone:
http://map1.squeakfoundation.org/sm/packagebyname/sqystone)

- Seaside has of course an overhead but I have built webapps using
HttpView2, which uses a very similar HTML creation model (even shares
some code) but without the continuation magic, and a non-scientific
comparison with our other J2EE apps shows that it is very competitive.

- The model with
everything-in-one-process-Squeak/KomHttpServer/HttpView2/Seaside and
combined with a good persistence model that doesn't add much overhead
(meaning that you don't do SQL-roundtrips for readonly page
presentation) really gives you an edge. If you have say Apache/PHP/SQL
then - without being an expert on LAMP - I am guessing you have at least
two costly interfaces: apache<->PHP and PHP<->MySQL (or whatever).

So anyway, disregarding the overhead of Seaside continuation magic, I
would say our setup is very competitive. And if we add some
KomHttpServer improvements and Exupery to the mix then... hey, I think
we could actually post some impressive numbers. :)

regards, Göran