2026年6月8日(月) 20:09 Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]>: > Konnichiwa > > Am 2026-05-16 17:19, schrieb Go Kudo: > > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/opcache_static_cache > > Implementation: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/22052 > > Thank you for your RFC. I am seeing there already was discussion and > changes to the RFC. This seems to have resulted in some inconsistencies. > > The "Proposal" section still mentions "the volatile cache, used by > OPcache\volatile_* […]", but these functions have been renamed. The same > applies to the next bullet point for the pinned cache and to the "Why > two cache backends" section. Maybe there is even more places where the > old function names are referenced. > > I also noticed some problems with the "Coding Standards and Naming > Policy" > (https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/coding-standards-and-naming.rst). > > Namely: > > 1. The namespace should be called `Opcache` for proper PascalCase. > 2. The `CacheStoreType` cases should follow PascalCase, so > `OpcacheSerialized` and `PhpSerialized`. > 3. There must be a `OpcacheException` base exception: `class > OpcacheException extends Exception { }`. > 4. `StaticCacheException` must extend from the `OpcacheException`. > 5. The policy does not say anything about properties, but it is > generally accepted that properties should also use camelCase instead of > underscores. So it needs to be `$startupFailed` instead of > `$startup_failed` and similar. > > I'm still working through the full RFC and the discussion. From what I > see the points above are still valid in the latest version of the RFC > and the discussion. That is why I am already sending them now. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus >
こんにちは Tim, お世話になっています I have recovered my health thanks to the medication. :) Currently implementation has 3.0.0, but RFC document version is 2.0.0, Document is stale status. I'm appealing to the Remove Attribute function currently, Attribute implementation requires the change of JIT implementations. But currently do not respond to ML members. I stopped updating RFC documents and implementations. (Sorry for my bad English, I didn't say this with the intention of criticizing the ML members.) I've implemented this as a pure PHP extension for use at my company. but performance is too bad compared to this RFC implementation. I understand there are security concerns associated with SHM sharing, and I believe I addressed these through an opt-in process on the SAPI side. I would appreciate your feedback on whether this is a sufficient solution. If I were to implement Attribute, this RFC would provide a very fast and efficient cache, but do you think we could get Dmitry's approval? (Derick, I apologize for getting your name wrong,) What is the best option I can offer right now? For now, I want to implement this RFC in a way that everyone desires. Best regards, Go Kudo
