Re: [RFC] Starting 5.3
| From: | Davey Shafik | Date: | Tue, 08 May 2007 19:38:45 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Starting 5.3 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Groups: | php.internals php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-29351@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
No, not "in other words". I said the words I said, because I meant those words. I'm talking about small *production* deployments. I don't see php.net or yahoo! using phar any time soon, but any site not currently leveraging a bytecode cache would certainly be included. This is the MAJORITY of PHP deployment. Something akin in traffic and use as bugs.php.net could use phar without any detriment (though not knowing what else that particular machine is used for, I wouldn't say to move bugs.php.net itself over, just giving an idea of size and scale :) - Daveyserving them as a static page. But applications like S9Y, FUDForum, phpMyAdmin where the *typical* usage is not to serve a large number of users, this is usually not an issue.In other words, it is not meant to deploy production applications, only local-user applications. Then the question raises again - why exactly we need the module? Low-traffic occasional-use apps do not need top performance, and PHP module should be just enough for them.