Hi
This have been a while since we had the discussions about APC in 5.4
(or in general extensions to move in and out of the Core, but more
about that in another thread).
http://markmail.org/message/4w6lcbunw3qfof3c
I bought this thread up a while back and it had a general approval
feeling among the core guys and those who participate in internal
discussions. So I was wondering if we finally agree on moving APC into
the core, or is it too "late" for that?
As Rasmus has spoken of, then the newly built-in webserver will
greatly help improving the code coverage for APC, while also bringing
some more attention to APC from a developer perspective (other than
those who dwell into pecl/).
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net
Hi!
This have been a while since we had the discussions about APC in 5.4
(or in general extensions to move in and out of the Core, but more
about that in another thread).
Not saying anything specifically about APC, I think it is way too late
to propose major features for 5.4 when we're days before beta. So if
it's 5.4, it's not 5.4.0 for sure.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
Hi
2011/9/9 Stas Malyshev smalyshev@sugarcrm.com:
Not saying anything specifically about APC, I think it is way too late to
propose major features for 5.4 when we're days before beta. So if it's 5.4,
it's not 5.4.0 for sure.
Well all in all I won't mind adding it in a "patch" release, much like
we added the FPM SAPI in 5.3. Like it was raised in the original
thread, bringing more awareness about an opcode cacher into a standard
distribution of PHP will benefit us all in the long run.
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net
The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
won't break any code since it is self contained...
Hi!
This have been a while since we had the discussions about APC in 5.4
(or in general extensions to move in and out of the Core, but more
about that in another thread).Not saying anything specifically about APC, I think it is way too late to
propose major features for 5.4 when we're days before beta. So if it's 5.4,
it's not 5.4.0 for sure.--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
Hi!
The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
won't break any code since it is self contained...
If it's an "old one", how comes nobody ever mentioned it during all the
extensive process of naming features, voting, etc. and didn't bother to
propose it?
I don't feel good about first agreeing to a set of rules and then
immediately starting to throw them away "just this time, just for this
occasion". Why have rules and release cycles then?
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
Hi!
The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
won't break any code since it is self contained...If it's an "old one", how comes nobody ever mentioned it during all the
extensive process of naming features, voting, etc. and didn't bother to
propose it?
There was a discussion and the conclusion was that APC was not ready
for inclusion. See my other reply.
I don't feel good about first agreeing to a set of rules and then
immediately starting to throw them away "just this time, just for this
occasion". Why have rules and release cycles then?
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
won't break any code since it is self contained...
I also thought that APC was going to part of PHP 5.4. And I agree with
Ilia that it doesn't matter to the overal stability if we bundle it or
not. It is self contained code, and having it part of the distribution
means more people play with it and use it, and problems are found
earlier. Release early, release often.
Having to delay APC, or basically any other self-contained bit of code
(extensions and new functions/classes/methods) for at least a year, and
perhaps sometimes up to even 2 years, makes very little sense to me. The
more ticker tape we get, the slower we innovate.
Of course, it's likely that things will have bugs, but if we mark it as
"exprimental" in the docs than I see no problems. It makes very little
sense to not allow any "new" code for a whole new year to filter into
PHP. It makes developing new exiciting things for PHP a pain as it
simply sucks to have to wait up to a year and a half for new shiny
things to appear in PHP.
Derick
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
I didn't closely follow the earlier discussions about including APC, but I
(and at least some other people working a lot on Drupal) had been mostly
assuming it'd be included in 5.4 based on those.
The assumption that APC is available by default (if not necessarily enabled)
would allow us to start making more assumptions in Drupal as well over time,
so while I have no stake in the decision, it would not at all be a surprise,
and it'd be very very welcome. If it came in 5.4.1 or something then that'd
make no odds though.
Nat
The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
won't break any code since it is self contained...I also thought that APC was going to part of PHP 5.4. And I agree with
Ilia that it doesn't matter to the overal stability if we bundle it or
not. It is self contained code, and having it part of the distribution
means more people play with it and use it, and problems are found
earlier. Release early, release often.Having to delay APC, or basically any other self-contained bit of code
(extensions and new functions/classes/methods) for at least a year, and
perhaps sometimes up to even 2 years, makes very little sense to me. The
more ticker tape we get, the slower we innovate.Of course, it's likely that things will have bugs, but if we mark it as
"exprimental" in the docs than I see no problems. It makes very little
sense to not allow any "new" code for a whole new year to filter into
PHP. It makes developing new exiciting things for PHP a pain as it
simply sucks to have to wait up to a year and a half for new shiny
things to appear in PHP.Derick
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Hi,
Hi
This have been a while since we had the discussions about APC in 5.4
(or in general extensions to move in and out of the Core, but more
about that in another thread).
I think the conclusion was that we should include it (that's btw. a
thought since the beginning of PHP 6) but anytime it was discussed it
was premature.
In general I'd tend to drop stuff from PHP instead of adding it. We ship
quite a few extensions where I claim that we don't do any testing and
little maintenance. I would reduce the distribution size and include
things we consider "core PHP" and enable these by default in the hope
that gives developers a clear guidance and what they should be able to
expect. (hoping we can convince distributors to have the same things in
their "PHP" meta packages) But that's nothing for 5.4 but for 5.5.
Anybody wants to write an RFC by chance? :-)
johannes
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
In general I'd tend to drop stuff from PHP instead of adding it. We ship
quite a few extensions where I claim that we don't do any testing and
little maintenance. I would reduce the distribution size and include
things we consider "core PHP" and enable these by default in the hope
that gives developers a clear guidance and what they should be able to
expect. (hoping we can convince distributors to have the same things in
their "PHP" meta packages) But that's nothing for 5.4 but for 5.5.
Anybody wants to write an RFC by chance?:-)
Since most of the linux distributors already strip the extra packages and ship
them self contained in their own packages it IS about time that the
non-essential extensions were kept separate from the core, so a move to a more
modular management system is overdue? We can then simply select what we want to
include with the core rather than the current method of simply ignoring the
unused extensions?
APC is optional ... like many other extensions ... so only needs to be supplied
as an option anyway.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php