> What I'm pointing out is that there are no 'inherent flaws' in the 'dog
> slow' implementation that we already had for a couple of years. If you
> want to add buffering, we can add buffering. There's no point in adding a
> specialized buffered implementation.
Well, php_html_puts has several advantages:
- it is buffering as you already noted without having to rely
on the huge output-buffering infrastructure. I have not
benchmarked it, but I do assume that it is noticably slower
than php_html_puts.
- it is faster due to passing TSRMLS around, instead of
having to fetch it for *every* single examined byte. This
is especially significant in threaded environments such as
Apache 2 or ISAPI.
- it is there and working fully. :-)
- Sascha Experience IRCG
http://schumann.cx/ http://schumann.cx/ircg
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
