Re: re-proposal of pecl/phar for inclusion in core

Hi Gregory, Do you have any benchmarks that compare the speed between trying to include/require files NOT in a phar archive, compared with calling include/require for files inside a phar archive? I have a large PHP application with about 5000 PHP files and we make use of the __autoload() functionality and Smarty extensively, each page load probably includes between 5-100 files itself, so the speed of this operation is crucial. It would be great if we could bundle our entire application as a single phar archive, it would also make automatic in-place upgrades/roll-backs that much easier, but if the day-to-day operation takes a significant speed hit, it obviously won't be worth it. Thanks. On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 11:30 -0600, Gregory Beaver wrote: > Criticisms: > > * non-standard file format > * limited introspection > * no support for web-based applications > * by default, phar archives require the phar extension to run > * massive modification of php applications required to run them as a > phar archive > * no caching of phar files in opcode caches > * has write support in the extension > -- Mike <ipso@snappymail.ca>

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part signature.asc