Re: Re: namespace RFC

Hello Gregory, Sunday, August 31, 2008, 10:04:23 PM, you wrote: > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> All the recent discussions about namespaces, have left many of us >> wondering if our implementation is rock solid or not. However the >> discussions were not really well organized. This is why I am thankful >> that Marcus and Felipe have spend the better part of this Sunday to >> write an RFC [1] that hopefully summarizes all the key concerns. Also >> they have created a patch that they feel addresses the concerns. >> >> So I ask you all to review the RFC and provide feedback. If you feel >> something is missing, the best approach is probably to work with Marcus >> and Felipe directly to get your concerns added. Only if there is a >> difference of opinion in this process should this be brought to >> internals. This way we can hopefully keep the discussion more focused on > Hi, > This is not a difference of opinion, but I would like to correct a > misconception: phar does *not* solve the problem that prompts > developers to concatenate files. > The problem is that the loading/unloading of the scanner and parser can > be significant overhead, and by cramming all code into a single file, > can result in a 10%-30% performance improvement over code in separate > files, even with an opcode cache. This has been verified independently > by Zend labs (Stanislav can attest to this) on their machines. The > performance difference depends on whether external code is loaded using > require with absolute path, require_once with relative path, autoload, > or some mix of these. > The problem requires streamlining of the loading process for files, and > could perhaps be addressed by attacking the bottleneck, but is not a > trivial problem to solve. > Just wanted to set the record straight. Please add that info to the rFC. Best regards, Marcus