Re: PEAR performance/overhead

"David Dickson" <davidd.lists@magma.ca> wrote in message news:41B5F7CC.40306@magma.ca... >I was told that PEAR has too much overhead to be considered for a large >scale site. Does any one feel the same? Is this an outrageous comment? I >would like to hear comments from people who are using PEAR, or people who >have considered PEAR but decided not to use it and your reasons. I wound up taking a hybrid approach, rolling my own DB abstraction layer that was more efficient than PEAR DB (and less full featured, as well), but suited our needs nicely. By doing this I was able to reduce each page's memory footprint by about 50%, and execution time by about 40%. I still use other components of PEAR, however, and I think it is a great resource. Anyone who dismisses PEAR out of hand, without giving it a serious look, is insane. > The packages I am particularly interested in are HTML_QuickForm and DB. You'll have to write some tests and do some benchmarks to decide what the best answer is.