Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:48885 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93511 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2010 03:57:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jun 2010 03:57:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.173 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.173 smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.173] ([67.192.241.173:45443] helo=smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 87/FD-15307-033EE1C4 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:57:36 -0400 Received: from relay7.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay7.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id F3173CE4F79; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay7.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 45707CE4E20; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C1EE32C.6080504@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:57:32 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilia Alshanetsky , PHP Internals References: <4C1EA662.1010601@sugarcrm.com> <49B64FA1-1BAA-4C88-AC9D-09E75792F05C@seancoates.com> <4C1ED20E.8050805@sugarcrm.com> <4C1EDA4B.9070300@sugarcrm.com> <4C1EDCFE.307@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] APC in trunk From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > If there is a better alternative to APC we can bundle with PHP, I am > definitely open to exploring that idea. However the alternatives I am > familiar either are closed source or have licences incompatible with > PHP, and that's without getting into the "better" argument. I don't know any better one, but this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about enabling it by default - and I'm saying it seems to me dangerous now. That doesn't mean APC is worse than something else - it just means something enabled by default in PHP has (or should have) higher requirements than something that'd be compiled by people that need it when they need it - as it happens now. I don't see a pressing need to have some bytecode cache enabled by default in any build of PHP. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227