Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29369 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 85958 invoked by uid 1010); 9 May 2007 07:18:30 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 85942 invoked from network); 9 May 2007 07:18:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 2007 07:18:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.132.245 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.132.245 an-out-0708.google.com Received: from [209.85.132.245] ([209.85.132.245:18546] helo=an-out-0708.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CD/36-30551-5C571464 for ; Wed, 09 May 2007 03:18:30 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d31so23583and for ; Wed, 09 May 2007 00:18:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ssxW6NSZpd6ocGKoyq6qeTYQxldy9SignnO6561HoSiW4bxk+llpE+T7PoK1sUBReshJlW582H+pn+vHxekTJNhFyDXcCijh6IkWK3iQcdtvNvEFuTsj5oPTLVe2bGb91w5aZ8UxkYFkjNXXrJbyZBtYj4fYUdGkXSJ59QwasQQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=WOhCZDojnF+XzRVnYTm95kut0XGrVFec/o4jH5x7/X42e7QN4zDozUY/HsZBzyhCswALD1u4j0UJKpB+Q35yjBViQPqZhXRLYcPMr0VmvwEHTpyaf9MGEEQjq7fEXmBUC/N9wwfxe2JP39S2XY6Qkr8wgxKCSEBsVdjI8o/G8KM= Received: by 10.114.151.13 with SMTP id y13mr88045wad.1178695105854; Wed, 09 May 2007 00:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.178.20 with HTTP; Wed, 9 May 2007 00:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:18:25 +0200 To: "Marcus Boerger" Cc: "Davey Shafik" , internals@lists.php.net, "Stanislav Malyshev" , "Andi Gutmans" , "Edin Kadribasic" In-Reply-To: <273037947.20070509001755@marcus-boerger.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <139872287.20070504170744@marcus-boerger.de> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE2FEE88@us-ex1.zend.net> <1291095925.20070504220553@marcus-boerger.de> <4640CC76.7090104@php.net> <4640CEAC.4050107@zend.com> <4640D1C5.2010000@php.net> <4640D647.7030509@zend.com> <4640E38D.4070007@php.net> <273037947.20070509001755@marcus-boerger.de> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Starting 5.3 From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre) On 5/9/07, Marcus Boerger wrote: > Hello Pierre, > > Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 10:59:08 PM, you wrote: > > > On 5/8/07, Davey Shafik wrote: > >> Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> > Why small deployment can't use PHP phar then? If they don't use bytecode > >> > cache parsing PHP on each request obviously isn't a problem for them. > >> > > >> > >> Because sometimes you like to not waste resources unnecessarily? Maybe > >> because their host only allows default PHP config and doesn't provide > >> PEAR or PECL? > > > Given that either PHP_Archive or pecl/phar are not required to execute > > a phar, I really don't see the point here. > > There is no reason to have PHP_Archive in a phar. No need whatsoever... > it would be a waste of space! Not having the extension would lead to > a situation where practically every phar would have to include the > PHP_Archive.Which would be suboptimal. Well, as I can understand your point, it is not really a problem. pear.phar is bundled and used by hundred of users and developers to install pear and it includes the php code. That does not answer my question, what's the gain of using an extension instead of the php implementation (to execute it)? (please don't answer me to try it myself :) --Pierre