Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39280
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.163 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4888DA96.3070508@zend.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:40:06 -0700
Organization: Zend Technologies
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Beaver <cellog@php.net>
CC: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>, 
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
References: <ADD0525F-F900-4F3A-9B76-1ED332CA31E0@pooteeweet.org> <486FA5FB.1000300@php.net> <4872B5D4.1000205@zend.com> <4877CE04.4070104@chiaraquartet.net> <487F880B.2090002@zend.com> <6A0D6007-9076-466B-9AF8-018451145466@pooteeweet.org> <487F96E0.1050208@zend.com> <4887D617.2010300@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <4887D617.2010300@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: towards a 5.3 release
From: stas@zend.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> b.php:
> <?php
> namespace Foo;
> class A {
>     function __construct() {throw new Exception('hi');}

Here in your proposal exhaustive autoload happens for all cases where 
you do not actually override Exception in Foo.

> <?php
> include 'a.php';
> include 'b.php';
> try {
> $a = new A;
> } catch (Foo::Exception $e) {
>    echo "caught\n";
> }
> ?>
> 
> throws a Foo::Exception and echoes "caught", demonstrating the 
> importance of load order as well.

You could do use Foo::Exception in b.php too, to solve it.

> Stas, your response is quite frustrating to this problem and fits a 
> pattern.  It seems the default response is always "no" or "that's not a 
> real problem" and is almost always condescending.  It makes it extremely 

No, there's no "default response". Just in this case it happens that 
your proposal introduces significant problem - performance hit on some 
innocent construct without any indication of it happening. And the 
solution for it that you propose is not better than the original state 
of affairs - doing "use" solves both cases, and if not doing "use" then 
your case has more problems. It has nothing to do with me or you - it 
has to do with how things work in the engine.

> difficult to have an intelligent debate with you.  If you don't think 
> something is a real problem, perhaps a better default response is "why 

I think it is a problem, however I do not think this solution is going 
to make things better. I am sorry if it looked like condescending to 
you, it was not my intent. However, the conclusion still stays - I think 
as proposed, this solution introduces more problems than solves. I would 
be happy to find a solution that is better - and I am looking for one - 
but right not it isn't good enough.
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com   http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829   MSN: stas@zend.com