Can we deduct from that a 6 version number for trunk? :) just kidding
I am also +1 on bundle but not on default. I think we should also reach out to
other OSS caches to ensure they know they still have a place in our Eco system.
Some are preferred by certain use cases.
On Jun 21, 2010, at 9
On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:02 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 14:09 21/06/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> Same here.
>>
>> +1 to bundle
>> -1 to enable it by default
>
> Slightly late to the game but my view is the same, +1 to bundle, -1 to enable
> by default.
Is it too late to discuss the topic of lea
At 14:09 21/06/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
Same here.
+1 to bundle
-1 to enable it by default
Slightly late to the game but my view is the same, +1 to bundle, -1
to enable by default.
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
>From my point-of-view as a developer (and occasional sysadmin) this is
something which I have been looking forward too for some time so
+1 for including in core
+1 for compiling but not enabling
Marco
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php
Am 21.06.2010 13:05, schrieb Rob Richards:
> It was already agreed to include it into 6 before so why the need for
> another vote on this just because its a new trunk?
Also eludes me :-)
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
I would like to know why a third party can develop a better (or more agile?)
cache than the core php devs. I would think that if anyone can align it nicely
especially when writing the core code itself and could also think about "this
is a great place for apc to hook in" or something. It's obvio
On 06/21/2010 04:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> As a PHP user, when moving to PHP 5.3, from 5.2 I had the question
> regarding which accel to use (I had been using APC). From most
> of what I read, APC was not compatible and looking at the APC site,
> the last 'stable' release was ~2years ago with a
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:39:30PM -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Stas,
>
> If there is a better alternative to APC we can bundle with PHP, I am
> definitely open to exploring that idea. However the alternatives I am
> familiar either are closed source or have licences incompatible with
> PHP, a
>> Competition between opcode caches for php will definitely be reduced by
>> adding APC into the core,
>> so the market will shrink, of course.
>
>
> i think this is a likely outcome indeed. it might also be phrased in a
> more
> positive tone in that likely efforts will be joined. for example ma
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On windows it is even easier, just don't load the dll file, most
extensions other then PCRE (?) are compiled as modules anyway... APC
would be no different, and I would go as far as saying that on Win32
Wincache is probably a better choice.
As long as these are added as
On 19 June 2010 14:23, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
+1 Added to core
-1 Enabled by default
If APC is not as stable on Windows as required _AND_ licensing issues
are resolvable, could WinCache for Windows be an option? That is
On 21.06.2010, at 13:07, jvlad wrote:
> Competition between opcode caches for php will definitely be reduced by
> adding APC into the core,
> so the market will shrink, of course.
i think this is a likely outcome indeed. it might also be phrased in a more
positive tone in that likely efforts
Same here.
+1 to bundle
-1 to enable it by default
On 21 Jun 2010 13:05, "Rob Richards" wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reaso...
+1 for including APC
-1 for enabling by default
It was already agreed to include it into 6 befo
>> Then is there any reason not to add all code compatible in php license
>> terms
>> into php core?
>
> What are you talking about? Who said that we have to add any php
> licensed code to the core? I only said that the license is a critical
> part of the decision. Nothing else.
APC can be added
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
+1
+1 for including APC
-1 for enabling by default
It was already agreed to include it into 6 before so why the
On windows it is even easier, just don't load the dll file, most
extensions other then PCRE (?) are compiled as modules anyway... APC
would be no different, and I would go as far as saying that on Win32
Wincache is probably a better choice.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> I
hi,
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:30 PM, jvlad wrote:
>> This bug is not APC specific.
>>
>
> In this case you can easily point out to another module suffering from this
> bug, don't you?
>
>>> License argument does not work at all.
>>
>> It does, more than ever.
>
> Then is there any reason not to
> This bug is not APC specific.
>
In this case you can easily point out to another module suffering from this
bug, don't you?
>> License argument does not work at all.
>
> It does, more than ever.
Then is there any reason not to add all code compatible in php license terms
into php core?
If no
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM, jvlad wrote:
>>> keep on the topic pls, which is the inclusion of potentially buggy and
>>> poorly maintained APC.
>>
>> I'm on topic. You seem to be able to fix this bug very easily, I only
>> told you how to provide patches.
>
> I do not care of bugs in APC unle
>> keep on the topic pls, which is the inclusion of potentially buggy and
>> poorly maintained APC.
>
> I'm on topic. You seem to be able to fix this bug very easily, I only
> told you how to provide patches.
I do not care of bugs in APC unless this module is NOT in php core.
If they appear in php
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:31 AM, jvlad wrote:
> keep on the topic pls, which is the inclusion of potentially buggy and
> poorly maintained APC.
I'm on topic. You seem to be able to fix this bug very easily, I only
told you how to provide patches.
APC is well maintained but all I can read from
>>>
>>> By the way, including APC in the core is actually likely to fix this
>>> problem because it has to do with the order the rshutdown functions are
>>> called. Read Christian's excellent description of the problem here:
>>>
>>> http://news.php.net/php.internals/46999
>>>
>>> -Rasmus
>>
>> conc
>> This is an unfixed PHP bug. There have been a number of threads about
>> the object destruction order on internals. It isn't just APC that is
>> affected by this. Other extensions are affected as well.
>
> I understand that this effect is caused by the fact that APC destroys PHP
> classes ea
hi,
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:58 AM, jvlad wrote:
>
> "Rasmus Lerdorf" wrote in message
> news:4c1ed90d.2030...@lerdorf.com...
>> On 6/20/10 7:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
We should document them if not
"Rasmus Lerdorf" wrote in message
news:4c1ed90d.2030...@lerdorf.com...
> On 6/20/10 7:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
>>> We should document them if nothing else.
>>
>> This recently caught my attention:
>> http://
>
> "Ilia Alshanetsky" wrote in message
> news:aanlktilzlbbfucuv-jtmkm-qljl1il7wsqy0fyhn3...@mail.gmail.com...
> Including into core of PHP has no impact on other opcode caches, if
> they do a better job then APC, people can definitely (and should) use
> them. The main purpose of including APC wo
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>
>> The test was done on Windows... I never said it was IIS only, it is
>> however
>> win32 only.
>
> Sorry - Most people using it will no have bought win64 yet was the point and
> the
> test was done on win32 as far
2010/6/21 Sebastian Bergmann :
> Am 20.06.2010 20:21, schrieb Ilia Alshanetsky:
>> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
>> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
>> enable it by default.
>
> +1 for bundling
> +1 for removing the "layer of ch
Am 21.06.2010 09:33, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
> What's the problem with moo?
You are not seriously asking that question, are you?
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
--
PHP Intern
On 21.06.2010, at 05:32, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> This is an unfixed PHP bug. There have been a number of threads about
>> the object destruction order on internals. It isn't just APC that is
>> affected by this. Other extensions are affected as well.
>
> I understand that this effect
What's the problem with moo?
Tyrael
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Sebastian Bergmann <
s...@sebastian-bergmann.de> wrote:
> Am 20.06.2010 23:07, schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf:
> > No, it is not enough to just have source code. The developers need to
> > play along as well.
>
> Which reminds me: do
Am 20.06.2010 23:07, schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf:
> No, it is not enough to just have source code. The developers need to
> play along as well.
Which reminds me: does anybody actually know who develops xcache? Last
time I checked the answer I found was: moo.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
Am 20.06.2010 20:21, schrieb Ilia Alshanetsky:
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
> enable it by default.
+1 for bundling
+1 for removing the "layer of checks for macros" for PHP <= 5.4
+1 for b
On Jun 20, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 6/20/10 7:55 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>
>>> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
>>> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we shou
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The test was done on Windows... I never said it was IIS only, it is however
win32 only.
Sorry - Most people using it will no have bought win64 yet was the point and the
test was done on win32 as far as I can tell. Anyway Pierre keeps saying that 64
bit is slower anyway ;
On 06/20/2010 10:21 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
> enable it by default.
+1 on adding into the distro
-1 on enabling by default
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
---
http://
On 6/20/10 7:55 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
>> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
>> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
>> enable it by default.
>>
>> +1
>
> We'd need to get h
On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
> enable it by default.
>
> +1
We'd need to get http://wiki.php.net/rfc/zendsignals committed before we e
Hi!
If there is a better alternative to APC we can bundle with PHP, I am
definitely open to exploring that idea. However the alternatives I am
familiar either are closed source or have licences incompatible with
PHP, and that's without getting into the "better" argument.
I don't know any bette
Stas,
If there is a better alternative to APC we can bundle with PHP, I am
definitely open to exploring that idea. However the alternatives I am
familiar either are closed source or have licences incompatible with
PHP, and that's without getting into the "better" argument.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at
Hi!
This is an unfixed PHP bug. There have been a number of threads about
the object destruction order on internals. It isn't just APC that is
affected by this. Other extensions are affected as well.
I understand that this effect is caused by the fact that APC destroys
PHP classes earlier
Hi!
The point is that it would be there for people to use, with as little
effort as possible, which would be changing 1 byte inside the INI
file. The issues APC is having with certain code is not specific to
APC, and does happen with other open source caches. Perhaps we need to
We don't discus
The point is that it would be there for people to use, with as little
effort as possible, which would be changing 1 byte inside the INI
file. The issues APC is having with certain code is not specific to
APC, and does happen with other open source caches. Perhaps we need to
examine the validity of
Hi!
Even if the extension is compiled by default, we can (and probably
should) leave apc.enabled at Off, recognizing some the things you are
mentioning.
I'm not sure I see the point of compiling it if it's disabled. Anyway,
most of the distributions probably would make it .so just as it happe
On 6/20/10 7:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
>> We should document them if nothing else.
>
> This recently caught my attention:
> http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16745
> As I understood from this bug, APC changes h
On 6/20/10 7:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
>> We should document them if nothing else.
>
> This recently caught my attention:
> http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16745
> As I understood from this bug, APC changes h
Stas,
Even if the extension is compiled by default, we can (and probably
should) leave apc.enabled at Off, recognizing some the things you are
mentioning.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
>>
Hi!
Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
We should document them if nothing else.
This recently caught my attention: http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16745
As I understood from this bug, APC changes how PHP works (since it works
without APC but not with i
Including into core of PHP has no impact on other opcode caches, if
they do a better job then APC, people can definitely (and should) use
them. The main purpose of including APC would be to raise the level of
awareness PHP users to the fact opcode caches exist and should be used
in virtually all in
Hi
2010/6/21 Stas Malyshev :
> Hi!
>
> Speaking of which - does apc work for Windows? Last time I checked (more
> than a year ago) it was extremely unstable. Was it fixed? What about other
> popular PHP platforms?
Me and Pierre put quite some work into getting APC to perform much
better on Window
"Ilia Alshanetsky" wrote in message
news:86a0c51a-e6f7-48f2-a065-eabe74c6a...@prohost.org...
> Several reasons:
>
> 1) APC is well maintained, by the same people who work on PHP.
>
> 2) The license does not preclude it's inclusion into the base version.
>
> 3) most people don't use any opcode cas
On 6/20/10 2:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> 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
APC has certain effects on the code that are far from obvious, and
enabling it by default would significantly complicate the average
user's learning curve.
Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
We should document them if nothing else.
S
--
PHP Internals -
Hi!
Sure, but that's win32 only
Speaking of which - does apc work for Windows? Last time I checked (more
than a year ago) it was extremely unstable. Was it fixed? What about
other popular PHP platforms?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-69
Hi!
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
I do not think it is a very good idea. APC has certain effects on the
code that are far from obvious, and enabling it by default would
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Sure, but that's win32 only
Does that matter at present?
http://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/
My only objection to bundling yet another package into the core distribution is
that it should be removable as well. eaccelerator works fo
Several reasons:
1) APC is well maintained, by the same people who work on PHP.
2) The license does not preclude it's inclusion into the base version.
3) most people don't use any opcode cashes, which is not ideal when it
comes to PHP.
4) apc inclusion does not prevent alternatives from exi
Sure, but that's win32 only
Ilia Alshanetsky
CIO/CSO
Centah Inc.
On 2010-06-20, at 16:54, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, 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
hi,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Perhaps a poll on what people are actually using in production?
The very large majority of the users I met use APC or Zend Cache
solutions. However the point here is that as long as the extension is
not php.net, they won't and can't be
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
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
Perhaps by adding it to core the original reasons for alternatives will be
reduced and the things that make those special could be implemented into apc?
On Jun 20, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20.06.2010, at
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!
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
> enable it by default.
I would like to add it as well; but not turn it on by default. Not
because it wouldn't be g
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, 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 w
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, 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 alte
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 mo
+1 as Lukas, on adding but not enabled by default.
On Jun 20, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> ( Foregot to change address again :( )
>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>> What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons no
On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, 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! Pro
( 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?
--
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
+1
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Greetings
>
> As the process for trunk grows, I think we should consider whi
71 matches
Mail list logo
