Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29351 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25936 invoked by uid 1010); 8 May 2007 19:39:23 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25905 invoked from network); 8 May 2007 19:39:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 May 2007 19:39:23 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 72.77.217.26 static-72-77-217-26.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net Received: from [72.77.217.26] ([72.77.217.26:22480] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7D/6F-01189-4E1D0464 for ; Tue, 08 May 2007 15:39:16 -0400 To: internals@lists.php.net,Stanislav Malyshev Message-ID: <4640D1C5.2010000@php.net> Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 15:38:45 -0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: internals@lists.php.net, Marcus Boerger , Andi Gutmans , Edin Kadribasic References: <139872287.20070504170744@marcus-boerger.de> <9DC00D11-00A5-40DB-A397-8454C48FA448@prohost.org> <1525138013.20070504193205@marcus-boerger.de> <463B70A1.4010505@zend.com> <463B7232.7000205@php.net> <463B8B36.5010906@zend.com> <1992195966.20070504214413@marcus-boerger.de> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE2FEE88@us-ex1.zend.net> <1291095925.20070504220553@marcus-boerger.de> <4640CC76.7090104@php.net> <4640CEAC.4050107@zend.com> In-Reply-To: <4640CEAC.4050107@zend.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 72.77.217.26 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Starting 5.3 From: davey@php.net (Davey Shafik) Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> serving them as a static page. But applications like S9Y, FUDForum, >> phpMyAdmin where the *typical* usage is not to serve a large number of >> users, this is usually not an issue. > > In other words, it is not meant to deploy production applications, only > local-user applications. Then the question raises again - why exactly we > need the module? Low-traffic occasional-use apps do not need top > performance, and PHP module should be just enough for them. > No, not "in other words". I said the words I said, because I meant those words. I'm talking about small *production* deployments. I don't see php.net or yahoo! using phar any time soon, but any site not currently leveraging a bytecode cache would certainly be included. This is the MAJORITY of PHP deployment. Something akin in traffic and use as bugs.php.net could use phar without any detriment (though not knowing what else that particular machine is used for, I wouldn't say to move bugs.php.net itself over, just giving an idea of size and scale :) - Davey