On 5/8/07, Davey Shafik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> No, not "in other words". I said the words I said, because I meant
>> those words. I'm talking about small *production* deployments. I don't
>> see
>
> Why small deployment can't use PHP phar then? If they don't use bytecode
> cache parsing PHP on each request obviously isn't a problem for them.
>
Because sometimes you like to not waste resources unnecessarily? Maybe
because their host only allows default PHP config and doesn't provide
PEAR or PECL?
Given that either PHP_Archive or pecl/phar are not required to execute
a phar, I really don't see the point here.
Now, from a "performence" point of view, how faster (or less slow) is
the extension in comparison to the user land stream implementation?
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
