Re: Clone - clone Vs Storable

For now, seems that you have to settle on Storable, as there are quite a few serious bugs in Clone.

However for long term, it seems Clone would replace Storable, so expect to migrate to Clone:

Although Storable is also optmized, but its dclone is slower when compare to Clone's clone. This is easy to understand, as dclone is not the focus of Storable.
The dclone function in Storable is kind of quick-and-dirty solution, it simply serialize the data structure first, and then deserialize it to create the clone. Although it is optimized to share data between step one and two, it still does lots of things that are needed for serialization but not pure cloning.

The functionality of deep clone should stay in a seperate class.

Comment on Re: Clone - clone Vs Storable - dclone

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re2: Clone - clone Vs Storable - dclone by UnderMine (Friar) on Mar 25, 2003 at 11:40 UTC
I think that at the heart here we have a core vs non-core issue. Core modules should be upto date with the latest things that have happened Core modules that cause seg faults tend to get fixed fast where as when a module such as Clone causes one it is not considered such an issue. `perl -e 'use Clone qw(clone); $a = \$b; undef $a; $c = clone $a;'` [download] and `perl -e 'use Clone qw(clone); $a ={}; undef $a; $c = clone $a;'` [download] Cause Seg faults but `perl -e 'use Clone qw(clone); undef $a; $c = clone $a;'` [download] and `perl -e 'use Clone qw(clone); $a =""; undef $a; $c = clone $a;'` [download] does not cause this issue. Core supports Uni-code but it takes time for modules to catch up. It appears that Clone does not support Unicode structures correctly :- `perl -MClone=clone -le '%a=(chr 256 =>1);$c=clone \%a; print ord fore +ach keys %$c' 196` [download] as oposed to `perl -MStorable=dclone -le '%a=(chr 256 =>1);$c=dclone \%a; print ord + foreach keys %$c' 256` [download] Hope this clears up a few things UnderMine	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re2: Clone - clone Vs Storable - dclone by pg (Canon) on Mar 25, 2003 at 15:32 UTC
I believe either Clone will become a core module, or something else fullfil the clone functionality will. From an architecture point of view, it does not make sense to mix serialization and deep clone in one class.	[reply]
Re^2: Clone - clone Vs Storable - dclone by Anonymous Monk on Nov 25, 2010 at 18:49 UTC
(1.) is not entirely true. I did test 3-level hash with approximately 20 keys per level. I did try to clone the whole thing, only two level slice and finally 1 level leaf. here are results: 1level "leaf" hash: Clone is twice as fast as dclone 2level hash: dclone is a slightly faster (assume the same) whole 3level hash: both are nearly the same (very slight ~1% advantage to Clone) everyone can setup own test but I think Clone has slight advantage only for very small structures. I would go with dclone. my 2c :) good luck!	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks

Re: Clone - clone Vs Storable - dclone