Re: on the coding standards - Re: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR Group June 24 2007 Meeting Minutes
| From: | Alexey Borzov | Date: | Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:16:58 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: on the coding standards - Re: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR Group June 24 2007 Meeting Minutes | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-47363@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi,
Adam Ashley wrote:
Yeah, I've heard a variant of this, too, when Rasmus was in Moscow in 2006. But I still don't see "having a file with 10 'require's, most of which are not needed, is better than having a couple of 'require_once's in strategic places". Especially since later Rasmus talks about eliminating useless 'require's.I mentioned this in my first email but to spell it out: Rasmus Lerdorf's LCA2007 PHP presentation 'Better Web Apps with PHP 5' slide 11 contains the numbers you want. http://talks.php.net/show/lca07/11 Or any of his presentations for the last year, I use the LCA2007 one simply because I was thereI'd really like to see something like "developer X, who maintains opcode cache Y, suggests this approach in his (tutorial|presentation|article) which can be read at [Z]." here, not just vigorous handwaving."*_once including of files not allowed" - Requires autoload() mechanisms, which are not considered by all to be the best mechanism for loading files and documenting code.. - This is a significant change and would need serious backing by all members.. I think a long time ago someone proposed class_exists(.....) ? false : require_once '......'; This seems a better compromise - as it solves 2 problem with one shot. - although an import statement would be better......The issue trying to be solved here is to be opcoce cache friendly.