Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64766 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59539 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2013 17:15:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Jan 2013 17:15:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.212.47 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.47 mail-vb0-f47.google.com Received: from [209.85.212.47] ([209.85.212.47:61945] helo=mail-vb0-f47.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A3/A1-02684-295ADE05 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:15:00 -0500 Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id e21so1797373vbm.34 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:14:56 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=4MROHIOENiBOPu9lxNZDrXkWPEK3SYUXABk5ODrML9o=; b=EhzGV+lTZ6Mal6lHcFjtYp48AyfYBbIFtrEf5/CcYa37v7fLDnRLcw6ZCHmXjFVmwY 4YjO6snMtB+Lp1Rw816q/rJxBQrut3jNBtFk5S3t7iMKtXym2lxCF2iO7zIobRbeOYxU 3Vc4cWal4IODK2n+PlkbEGeKJbuRAOF5LnSGCgSET63/BfFwjzLdyZlA+se+p95opoXK nURCL9Dflu/8bMf3ncZ3FTMhgd/AygJbl0YF/1Frm8qscOiKM92Y9qrUqPdZPTeAF5Bk i9Nl3K4gcGgbtZojuCRC0nHMl1mn+6GSQqM9bmZ7+YThH1Pjzw1JHEkIqnHsp1ncfg03 +9/Q== X-Received: by 10.58.68.74 with SMTP id u10mr92573576vet.21.1357751696018; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.200.148] (c-50-131-44-225.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.131.44.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bm2sm55167907vdc.6.2013.01.09.09.14.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:14:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50EDA58C.8050301@lerdorf.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:14:52 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anthony Ferrara CC: Derick Rethans , Rafael Dohms , Stas Malyshev , Pierre Joye , Pierrick Charron , "internals@lists.php.net" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoqdxzWHTotTVvUK9aq+RzRFeQ5WKz9f9qX9+KcIIMeG/Soap00YI/k61NV6Jj/QEmPrr/ Subject: Re: Was Reflection annotations reader - Pull APC in Core Already From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) On 01/09/2013 09:03 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > Rasmus > > > This is my worry as well. Especially when it comes to opcode cache > support. Most of the patches I see these days completely ignore the > opcode cache side of things which needs to change. For any large > language-level change, any implementation that doesn't also include an > APC diff, or at least a very complete explanation of how it will be > generally supported by opcode caches just isn't complete. > > > I see this as the exact wrong way a language should progress. The core > should not be bound to extensions, but the other way around. Otherwise > it creates this weird meta state... > > While I do see your point, to me it's less of an issue that it breaks > APC, and more of an issue that APC's functionality is not in core. It effectively is a core extension. Many, perhaps even most, sites won't upgrade to a new PHP version until there is solid APC support for it, and as far as end-user visibility goes, they just see it as a php5-apc package just like php5-mysql. Whether one is in core or not is invisible to them. But yes, if it takes putting it in core to get developers to pay attention, then that is what we will have to do. It is however handy to be able to have a separate release schedule for it and I like the separation and modularity of it. Having more of the optional core extensions separated this way wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. -Rasmus