You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by Doug MacEachern <do...@covalent.net> on 2000/09/26 19:57:08 UTC
Re: subprocess_env
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Ian Kallen wrote:
>
> I'm using a third party module that writes a bunch of variables to the
> subprocess_env table to setup data for the request. It has us making
> repeated class method calls like this (for our usage with Mason):
> <% Blah::foo('bletch') %>
>
> where foo is in the Blah package merely doing this:
>
> sub foo {
> my($s) = @_;
> my($r) = Apache->request();
> return $r->subprocess_env('foo_' . $s);
> }
>
> I'm thinking of changing the behvior to
> <% $ENV{'foo_bletch'} %>
> but foo_bletch isn't in the %ENV hash, so I'm looking at initializing
> every request to do this:
> $r->subprocess_env->do(
> sub { my($k,$v)=@_;
> $ENV{$k}=$v;
> 1;
> }
> );
> to eliminate repeated accesses of the subprocess_env table; one call
> populates %ENV and that's it.
>
> Now, I don't want to kick off a debate on the performance problems that
> reading/writing to the environment incur; I didn't design this behavior
> I just want to make the best of it since this is what the application
> requires of us. I just need to optimize access to the environment by
> turning the dozen or so calls per request to Blah::foo to just %ENV.
>
> Any ideas regarding the expense of mulitple $r->subprocess_env vs.
> accessing %ENV?
%ENV will probably be faster for lookups, since subprocess_env has the
overhead of calling a perl subroutine (pp_entersub). it's the population
of %ENV that can be expensive. you might be better off populating a
non-magic global, such as %Env.