Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35010 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26977 invoked by uid 1010); 29 Jan 2008 20:35:13 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26959 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2008 20:35:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Jan 2008 20:35:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ipso@snappymail.ca; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ipso@snappymail.ca; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain snappymail.ca designates 216.139.220.195 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ipso@snappymail.ca X-Host-Fingerprint: 216.139.220.195 216-139-220-195.aus.us.siteprotect.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [216.139.220.195] ([216.139.220.195:60773] helo=mail.timetrex.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 92/6B-55338-00E8F974 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:35:13 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.9] (S0106005004c32d38.ok.shawcable.net [24.71.236.35]) by mail.timetrex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDB754001; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:35:08 -0800 (PST) To: Gregory Beaver Cc: internals Mailing List In-Reply-To: <479E1152.50301@chiaraquartet.net> References: <479E1152.50301@chiaraquartet.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-gwQmN2mzkRXM/Wc9be5Y" Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:35:06 -0800 Message-ID: <1201638906.24165.109.camel@ipso.snappymail.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.21.5-1mdv2008.1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] re-proposal of pecl/phar for inclusion in core From: ipso@snappymail.ca (Mike) --=-gwQmN2mzkRXM/Wc9be5Y Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Gregory, Do you have any benchmarks that compare the speed between trying to include/require files NOT in a phar archive, compared with calling include/require for files inside a phar archive? I have a large PHP application with about 5000 PHP files and we make use of the __autoload() functionality and Smarty extensively, each page load probably includes between 5-100 files itself, so the speed of this operation is crucial.=20 It would be great if we could bundle our entire application as a single phar archive, it would also make automatic in-place upgrades/roll-backs that much easier, but if the day-to-day operation takes a significant speed hit, it obviously won't be worth it. Thanks. On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 11:30 -0600, Gregory Beaver wrote: > Criticisms: >=20 > * non-standard file format > * limited introspection > * no support for web-based applications > * by default, phar archives require the phar extension to run > * massive modification of php applications required to run them as a > phar archive > * no caching of phar files in opcode caches > * has write support in the extension >=20 --=20 Mike --=-gwQmN2mzkRXM/Wc9be5Y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkefjfYACgkQMhKjsejwBhi6HwCcCxq5PRHaE7rrDQGI2gXl0ZS7 vmMAnjjOo8FB9UsuEAliVKRpISD5izLL =52Jv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-gwQmN2mzkRXM/Wc9be5Y--