Hi internals, https://wiki.php.net/rfc/opcache.no_cache has been updated. Instead of opcache.no_cache=1, opcache.enable_cache=0 is now used to disable caching.
In the RFC, I wrote that opcache_get_status() now includes the following new booleans - `optimizations_enabled`, which is true if any optimization passes will get run. - `allow_cache`, which will be true if any form of opcode caching is enabled. Maybe `cache_opcodes` or `opcode_cache_enabled` would be a better name. Any thoughts on whether opcache_get_status() should be changed at all here? It's probably possible but inconvenient to determine what's being done with extension_loaded() and multiple calls to ini_get(), and the intended meaning of existing flags such as `opcache_enabled` was never documented in https://www.php.net/opcache_get_status Any other thoughts on the RFC? > > In my opinion, configuration names should never be "in the negative". > > Instead of defaulting to opcache.no_cache=0, default to opcache.cache=1. > > ... the setting isn't actually enabling cache, it's allowing cache (i.e. > opposite of disabling), > so making this "opcache.allow_cache" might be the best. I'll probably go with > that. > (similar to allow_url_fopen, allow_url_include) > > ... `opcache.cache` could be confused with the caching strategy or the path > to the cache, > or being sufficient on its own to enable caching Thanks, - Tyson -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
