Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25632
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain ratp.fr from 81.255.174.9 cause and error)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:01:12 +0200
Message-ID: <C2F85D46E420FD4DB2065FE6901C6D0B410E44@EXCHANGE04.info.ratp>
Thread-Topic: Re: Re: __autoloading and functions
Thread-Index: AcbWWsJrkftt9lQvSdCbEjWGJje3ug==
To: <tslettebo@broadpark.no>,
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: Re: __autoloading and functions
From: francois.laupretre@ratp.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?LAUPRETRE_Fran=E7ois_=28P=29?=)

Yes, the trivial answer is to name each file after the symbol it =
contains, but it limits to one symbol per file (and I was talking about =
autoloading constants ! :-).

Once again, if we don't propose a smarter autoload manager, extending =
the autoload feature to functions is not very interesting because, for =
most PHP programmers, it won't make their task easier (and it won't =
allow to autoload extensions, which would be a big step forward).

I would be glad if people interested in this subject could have a look =
at an autoload manager I have written and which could, IMHO, solve most =
of these problems. It contains two parts : a CLI program to scan source =
files and extensions and store their symbols in map files, and a runtime =
resolver which will use these files. A map file can contain symbols for =
any number of source or extension files allowing, for instance, to put =
only one map file in the extensions directory to store the symbols of =
every extensions present on the host.

As there is no hook at this time in the PHP engine to autoload functions =
and constants, their resolutions must be explicitely requested before =
using the symbol but, if the autoload feature was extended to these =
symbol types, the autoloader would be completely transparent to the =
client programs.

Of course, it is written in PHP today but it would be quite easy to =
rewrite it in C and integrate it to the core.

If it was integrated to the core and if we added a cache to keep symbol =
maps in memory, I am sure that the speed up due to JIT loading would =
balance the autoloading overhead.

Please tell me what you think about it.

Regards

Fran=E7ois

Terje Sletteb=F8 wrote:
> > > In either of the above cases, you specify where a function =
belongs, both
> > > where it's defined, and where it's used (either through full
> qualification,
> > > or a shorter one, using "import"). I'm not arguing for a function =
to
> > > "magically" become a part of a class/module/whatever, if you =
thought so
> > >
> > Then the question is how do you think this function would be used?
>=20
> That's a very good question... One "simple" answer would be to have =
one file
> per function, and have it work like typical class autoloaders. =
However, that
> could be too much overhead (on many levels), having a lot of small =
files,
> that conceptually belong together.
>=20
> Maybe function autoloading isn't such an obvious feature, after all =
(which
> was one reason for bringing it up - getting the pros and cons of it. =
By the
> way, I've now also read in on the archive of this and the other issues
> having been mentioned in this thread, such as namespaces).
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Terje