Re: [RFC] Starting 5.3
| From: | Pierre | Date: | Tue, 08 May 2007 20:59:08 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Starting 5.3 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-29355@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 5/8/07, Davey Shafik <davey@php.net> wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:Given that either PHP_Archive or pecl/phar are not required to execute a phar, I really don't see the point here. Now, from a "performence" point of view, how faster (or less slow) is the extension in comparison to the user land stream implementation? --PierreWhy small deployment can't use PHP phar then? If they don't use bytecode cache parsing PHP on each request obviously isn't a problem for them. Because sometimes you like to not waste resources unnecessarily? Maybe because their host only allows default PHP config and doesn't provide PEAR or PECL?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