Hello Pierre, Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 10:59:08 PM, you wrote:
> 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. There is no reason to have PHP_Archive in a phar. No need whatsoever... it would be a waste of space! Not having the extension would lead to a situation where practically every phar would have to include the PHP_Archive.Which would be suboptimal. Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
