Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80326 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 73205 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2015 17:13:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jan 2015 17:13:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@tekwire.net; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@tekwire.net; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain tekwire.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@tekwire.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:63922] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 08/E2-48183-C9D51B45 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:13:01 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90604B0267; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:10:53 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Pierre Joye'" Cc: "'PHP internals'" , "'Benjamin Eberlei'" References: <001501d02ccc$574a6bf0$05df43d0$@tekwire.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:12:52 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01d02cf8$ab090130$011b0390$@tekwire.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKBrOMj1TuM8+kkOgWpn3PeY833kwH7Ko95Akxyc6oB03YOjpslvRyQ Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150110-0, 10/01/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Extension Prepend Files From: francois@tekwire.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) De : Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@gmail.com]=20 > Opcache is why I think we should have a list registered names. A = simple hash exists and the cache will know what to do. Sorry, I am not sure I understand how the opcode cache, as it exists = now, can understand this. Do you mean that opcode cache code would need = to be modified ? Anyway, that's the occasion to ask this : do we consider opcache the = only supported opcode cache in the future or do we still support APC and = other alternative opcode caches. I'd like to know if we are free to = improve the way opcode cache communicates with the core, or if we must = keep BC. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois