On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:13, "André Rømcke" <a...@ez.no> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Derick Rethans wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, Kalle just pointed out that it compiles just fine. In that > >>> case, I think we should put it in trunk and in the 5.4 alpha. > >>> > >> > >> As long as it is disabled by default and can easily be replaced by > >> preferred alternatives ... eaccelerator is still working fine now that > it > >> has been upgraded to handle 5.3 ... although it would be nice to see > some > >> more up to date comparisons. Although I suspect in reality, the > combination > >> with database and other caching activity means that a straight > comparison > >> may be a little meaningless? Change the database and the figures are > going > >> to be different anyway ... so a straight comparison on non-database code > >> would be a little more practical. > >> > > > > +1. Being disabled by default was agreed on for "old 6.x" so should be > for > > 5.4 as well. > > +1 > > As long as it actually works as opposed to just compiling :) > > Zeev > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Hi.
I think there were 2 open question when the APC merge was brought to the list: - Which branch should be merged? From the past and current emails, I think we are talking about the current trunk. - Should APC be enabled by default? If APC would be disabled by default, and the current trunk works, then I would +1 for the inclusion. However I think that the original thread is about the current status, and the possible problems. Tyrael
