On 5/9/07, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Pierre,
Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 10:59:08 PM, you wrote:
> On 5/8/07, Davey Shafik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> >> No, not "in other words". I said the words I said, because I meant
>> >> those words. I'm talking about small *production* deployments. I don't
>> >> see
>> >
>> > Why small deployment can't use PHP phar then? If they don't use bytecode
>> > cache parsing PHP on each request obviously isn't a problem for them.
>> >
>>
>> Because sometimes you like to not waste resources unnecessarily? Maybe
>> because their host only allows default PHP config and doesn't provide
>> PEAR or PECL?
> Given that either PHP_Archive or pecl/phar are not required to execute
> a phar, I really don't see the point here.
There is no reason to have PHP_Archive in a phar. No need whatsoever...
it would be a waste of space! Not having the extension would lead to
a situation where practically every phar would have to include the
PHP_Archive.Which would be suboptimal.
Well, as I can understand your point, it is not really a problem.
pear.phar is bundled and used by hundred of users and developers to
install pear and it includes the php code.
That does not answer my question, what's the gain of using an
extension instead of the php implementation (to execute it)? (please
don't answer me to try it myself :)
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
