If there's no concrete reason it is needed I think things should stay as they are. One reason - it's slower, probably not noticeable but it still is.
Andi At 03:06 PM 10/14/2002 +0100, Nick Lindridge wrote: > > why would one want to have different executors/compilers in > > different threads? > >I can't answer this question Thies, and one could achieve it as-is by >having a thread safe delegator, but as far as possible I'd suggest that >publicly exposed features of the engine should work across supported >platforms, and isn't the case with these hooks. > >I remember the days when myself and other kids were writing machine >code non-flicker software on Sinclair ZX80's, and that was thought of >as 'impossible' (as the CRT hardware was driven by software and any >operations caused flicker), but actually this was possible if you'd a >Z80 handbook to hand and didn't mind counting instruction cyles on all >the possible branch paths, and pulled some tricks. > >This is just in my view and experience, but people will always use >features and do things that designers of said features could never have >conceived. Equally people will solve problems in different ways to >others, and one has to mindful of this and accordingly endeavour to >design without artificial constraints. If one knows that modifiable >globals should be made thread safe on a threaded server then unless >there's a good reason to not do it, it should be done, and not omitted >just because the developer 'didn't think that it would be useful'. >Genuine omissions, as was probably the case here, are fine, and we all >make them, but should then be scheduled for correction once discovered >for the benefit of future developments, and to improve the quality of >the product as a whole. > > > > > >-- >PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
