I'm glad to hear things have improved. Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't say I was sold on the subject, but I did show some evidence showing the opposite being true. I would love to see an official Zend paper on this.
Autoloading vs direct includes is a large debate, even at work, which I would love to see some hard supporting facts on the subject. As for creating my own test suites? I'm just too busy to be able to give it the proper attention that is required. So, I rely on the breakdown from others. Mike's blog was the last thing I herd on the subject (and was backed up by other testimonials I've read), so I tended to gravitate towards his findings. In a way, Matthew even validated what Mike had discovered. However, Matthew did said things have improved since then -- great! I'd love to see some evidence. (Logically, I can completely understand, but logic is just that: logic not fact) Until the Zend paper is released, all we have to fall back on is Mike's findings, which show the opposite. Cheers! Philip On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Matthew Ratzloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Although I was (like you) under the impression that opcode caches couldn't > cache autoloaded classes, I'm more inclined to trust Matthew and Ralph > than a blog post from last December that doesn't have the test suite > available for download. Five months is a long time in Zend Framework > time; since then, there have been three releases: 1.0.4, 1.5.0, and 1.5.1. > > This belief is common among PHP developers, though, so if it isn't the > case I'd like to know about it. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to > Zend's paper on the subject. > > -Matt > > On Sun, May 11, 2008 10:25 am, Philip G wrote: > > > Try several months: > > > http://blog.digitalstruct.com/2007/12/23/zend-framework-performance-zend_loader/ > > http://blog.digitalstruct.com/2007/12/24/accelerators-revisited/ > > > > I'd be quite curious to see if things have changed. > > -- Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gpcentre.net/
