Re: APC in trunk

I would like to know why a third party can develop a better (or more agile?) cache than the core php devs. I would think that if anyone can align it nicely especially when writing the core code itself and could also think about "this is a great place for apc to hook in" or something. It's obvious due to the strong feelings that this is a controversial point due to how well other options work. As a user myself I have to ask "why can't there be one that encompasses all the best of all of them" On Jun 21, 2010, at 5:50 AM, Antony Dovgal <tony@daylessday.org> wrote: > On 06/21/2010 04:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> As a PHP user, when moving to PHP 5.3, from 5.2 I had the question >> regarding which accel to use (I had been using APC). From most >> of what I read, APC was not compatible and looking at the APC site, >> the last 'stable' release was ~2years ago with a bunch of betas. I >> then looked at XCache and saw that it was "more maintained" as well >> as explicitly mentioned PHP 5.3 compatibility. >> >> In other words, to the unwashed masses, XCache, for example, >> seemed a "better" and "safer" choice than APC, despite the >> list of names attached to the latter. > > We've been experiencing some troubles with APC + 5.3, too, > so I tried switching to XCache and my experience is described here: > http://xcache.lighttpd.net/ticket/240 > Judging by XCache SVN, there were no changes since then. > > So we're still using APC + 5.3 in production, even though > I get a core now and then (weird, last segfault was ~2 weeks ago..). > > -- > Wbr, > Antony Dovgal > --- > http://pinba.org - realtime statistics for PHP > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >