Re: phpng: Refactored PHP Engine with Big Performance Improvement

I recently converted apache2handler to support phpng and it's appeared significantly slower than FastCGI and FPM. So I'm even not sure if it makes sense to support it. Especially, remembering problems with compatibility between mod_php and mod_perl for example that use the same libraries. It's just thoughts, I'm not going to remove something :) Thanks. Dmitry. On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: > > > > On 7 במאי 2014, at 09:13, Sebastian Bergmann <sebastian@php.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Playing devil's advocate: does anyone really need SAPIs other than > > > FastCGI, CLI, and embed? And if so: do we care enough to burden > > > ourselves with their maintenance? > > > > > > > I think you just called me "the devil" ;) > > > > Seriously, I can't think of any *real* reason of why anybody would > > need something other than these SAPIs in 2014 (other than FUD). > > Things like ISAPI and other more esoteric SAPIs are no brainers, and > > while mod_php may be a bit more of a leap of faith, it doesn't truly > > brings any tangible benefits over FastCGI (none that can't be > > relatively easily replicated in userland anyway, eg htscanner). > > > > I'd support it. > > > > Zeev > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > You forgot fpm and phpdbg from that list. > A little bit offtopic, but I think it would be nice if we could have some > pecl-like infrastructure to host and install 3rd party sapis without the > need to bundle them with the core. > > ps: maybe something like https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66589 > could be > also considered then. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu >