Re: Fw: [PHP-DEV] Function caching...

On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Kristian Koehntopp wrote: > Jon Tai wrote: > > I'm sure the day will come when I'll need a > > "full-fledged-load-balancing-clustering-whatever-app-server", and I'm very > > relieved to hear that someone (lots of someones) are working on writing one. > > However, I'd doubt that when it's all done, it will be called "PHP". > > Again: For a lot of people I know of, this day has been three > months ago. They are not writing single threaded preforked > application servers for fun. They do this because they have to > stick to a crude hack since PHP does not offer a better scaling > and more elegant solution as a native feature. PHP is only part of the equation. If PHP were implemented under (for example) Domino, then the problem(s) could be better dealt with. > And sure the resulting thing will need to run unmodified or only > minimally modified PHP scripts or else it would be of little use > to migrating users. Thus it should be called PHP. Huh? What? Where did this come from? What sort of twisted logic brought you to this conclusion? PHP is a>_ LANGUAGE_<. As such, it doesn't care about protocols, or file formats, or scalabilty, or any of that. It's a bit like trying to make an operating system called C simply because C doesn't handle the low-level details of accessing files on your hard disk. Or like a pencil that can materialize across the room because it requires somebody to actually use it to do anything. > [snip] > > Apache 2.0 is only a partial solution for multiple reasons > (like: not available, no release date, not even (obvious) > documentation on http://www.apache.de and you commit yourself > to > a single webserver - an advantage of PHP always has been > relative webserver independence). Yeah, but here's the thing: Apache and PHP are what's known as loosely-coupled. You can use Apache, or IIS, or Roxen, or thttpd, or whatever as your web server, and PHP, or Perl, or Python, or C, or whatever as your language. The fact remains that none of those taken together could possibly end up as an application server. > Anyway, this discussion leads nowhere. Zeev pretty much made > clear that Zend is not interested into enterprise solutions, but > into a preferably objectless web-BASIC for writing guestbooks. Wow. More twisted logic. Who said that an application server is required for enterprise-level solutions? Why can't an "objectless web-BASIC" be enough in some cases? > I agree with him insofar that simple things should be simple. > But in my opinion complex things still should be possible. They > should not be banned from a language or an architecture just > because they are nontrivial. AHA! You said it! A LANGUAGE. I guess you could call LotusScript an "application server" if you wanted to :) > Kristian > -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ignacio@openservices.net>