Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 2:05 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced
on by default! Probably more people use alternatives and have for years?
pecl has been around for years. Nobody else has submitted an opcode
cache to pecl. We certainly would not have rejected any such
submission, and we still won't.
Well eaccelerator has served me well for years on both Windows and Linux
and has been listed on wikipedia for years before APC was added ;) Just
because people don't like restrictive source management does not mean
good code is not available.
No, it is not enough to just have source code. The developers need to
play along as well.
? eaccelerator is being actively developed, and builds are available for more
versions of windows setup than PHP itself currently supports so the developers
of it are playing along much better then PHP core developers. And a number of
alternatives have also been listed by others. So the question has to be "Why
should APC be given special treatment?" Is it any better than the currently
available alternatives or is it still playing catchup much like PDO?
Perhaps a poll on what people are actually using in production?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
