[Nagiosplug-devel] Re: Last call for Perl-plugin-objects

[Andreas Ericsson]

Stanley Hopcroft wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 01:47:00PM +0100, Paul L. Allen wrote:
> 
>>Karl DeBisschop writes: 
>>
>>
>>>2) you agree that the performance cost is acceptable. 
>>>
>>>I can try to work on #1, but as noted above, free time is presently near
>>>zero. 
>>>
>>>As far as #2, the judgment call is entirely in your court as far as I am
>>>concerned. 
>>>
>>>As usual, people may disagree. But those are my opinions on the matter.
>>
>>Perl's OOP does have significant performance costs.
> 
> 
> If no one other than me is willing to A/B the performance of plugins
> built with the Howard Wilkinson and/or Yuval Kogman Perl OO bases, then
> claims of this nature are unhelpful.
> 
> One thing that suprised me when I did this is that even without embedded
> Perl Support, plugin performance is far more limited by IPC delays than
> method dispatch delay.
> 
> Using Mr Wilkinsons OO basis, the procedural check_ms_spooler run time
> IIRC, is no more than 5% better than the OO version.
> 
> This is the opportunity for those that like me were unconvinced of the
> merit of the proposal to post measurements demonstrating that the OO
> performance is a slug.
> 
> Yours sincerely.
> 

(I haven't followed this closely, so I can't really say that I'm up to 
speed).

My experience tells me that people who write new plugins do so pretty 
much ad-hoc because they want something to happen. If they're kind 
enough to submit the plugin to the list, should we then force them to do 
so conforming to standards, or should we make it easier for them to 
contribute by setting standards low?

Is this code available for review somewhere, btw? I'd like to have a 
look at it, and maybe I can find some alternatives.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson
OP5 AB
+46 (0)733 709032
andreas.ericsson at op5.se