Re: [RFC] Starting 5.3

On 5/9/07, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:

Hello Pierre, Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 10:59:08 PM, you wrote: On 5/8/07, Davey Shafik <davey@php.net> wrote:

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

Why 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?

Given that either PHP_Archive or pecl/phar are not required to execute a phar, I really don't see the point here. There is no reason to have PHP_Archive in a phar. No need whatsoever... it would be a waste of space! Not having the extension would lead to a situation where practically every phar would have to include the PHP_Archive.Which would be suboptimal.

Well, as I can understand your point, it is not really a problem. pear.phar is bundled and used by hundred of users and developers to install pear and it includes the php code. That does not answer my question, what's the gain of using an extension instead of the php implementation (to execute it)? (please don't answer me to try it myself :) --Pierre