Re: allfiles.php has nothing to do with performance -please read the proposal CAREFULLY

On 8/28/07, Philippe Jausions <Philippe.Jausions@11abacus.com> wrote: > Alexey Borzov wrote: > > Gregory Beaver wrote: > > A better solution would be to provide a "one file - one package" > > distribution or a phar file. > > Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It wouldn't allow developers to > override one class of the package for bug fixes for instance. On the other hand, it *would* encourage proper OOP programming: extension instead of overriding. You typically shouldn't be dropping in replacement classes, but instead extending the existing class and overriding methods as necessary. > > > 2) advanced users who wish to see which files are within a package can > > > use it to decide which files they wish to include directly > > > > They can also do this by a simple > > var_dump(get_included_files()); > > at the end of the script, why mandate a useless extra file? > > Agreed, not needed for the advanced users. An out-of-the-box > allfiles.php, might be useful to run tests though. > > > > It serves no useful performance purpose, and is likely to be slower than > > > both require_once and __autoload() for complex packages because more > > > files are loaded. > > Indeed. For packages that implement factories, requiring all files would be overkill, and __autoload() is a nice solution. However, that said, doing checks for class_exists() mean more code for the developer over a simple require/include_once: if (!class_exists($class)) { throw new Foo_Exception('Class ' . $class . ' not found by factory'); } // vs. include_once $classSpec; I'd like to see if a simpler mechanism, a one-liner like include/require_once, could be created. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney mweierophinney@gmail.com http://weierophinney.net/matthew/