On 02/02/2015 07:35 PM, David Muir wrote:
On 3 Feb 2015, at 3:49 am, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:38 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
Hi,
Opening the vote for :
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streams-is-cacheable
This RFC proposes a generic way for opcode caches
De : Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Don't we already have this problem with chrooted FPM? I haven't tested it
more recently, but last time I tried, opcache would fail to invalidate the
cache
after updating the file. Worked fine with a non-chroot environment. Not
sure if this is
On 3 Feb 2015, at 3:49 am, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:38 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
Hi,
Opening the vote for :
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streams-is-cacheable
This RFC proposes a generic way for opcode caches to decide if a given URI
is cacheable or
On Feb 3, 2015 12:31 AM, François Laupretre franc...@tekwire.net wrote:
De : Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Doesn't this imply that path is the one true cache key? There are some
issues with that which we will have to address at some point. For
example, when running fpm
On 02/02/2015 08:38 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
Hi,
Opening the vote for :
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streams-is-cacheable
This RFC proposes a generic way for opcode caches to decide if a given URI
is cacheable or not.
Doesn't this imply that path is the one true cache key? There are
De : Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Doesn't this imply that path is the one true cache key? There are some
issues with that which we will have to address at some point. For
example, when running fpm chrooted you need more than the path. We'll
likely need a more APC-like option
