Re: clarification on the performance of require_once andAPC

Alexey Borzov wrote:

This is a bogus argument, no one is trying to get rid of include_path, and I have already clearly demonstrated that include_path *IS* hard to understand and to use, you simply ignore it by saying anyone who doesn't is not a programmer.

No, I say that include_path is a very common and flexible instrument, and if a person is unfamiliar with it then he must be educated in its use. PEAR makes use of pretty advanced concepts, and if the person is able to grasp classes / exceptions / whatever else then we can expect him to understand include_path also. Though we must make it easier for him, not repeating the errors I outlined above.

I also do not think that setting an include path is such a high barrier to entry. People have been using it as an excuse though, but I fear they will find other excuses. I also think that include path has some nice aspects to it, like being able to put your customized files inside a path at the very front. Thats all cool and dandy. But include path totally fails when you want to do something like __autoload(), require (without once), everything inside a single file etc. Then you would have to go in and strip out calls (some of which may be hidding inside methods). This is where the proposed solution shines at the minimal effort. For people that do not care the effort is just defining a file with an autoload once and including that one at least once in their scripts. Done. Happy. regards, Lukas