On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. It has integration issues with ZO+ in that it has to be included in a > specific order (specifically around ini declarations). If it was included > into core, this could be accounted for allowing for more robust behavior.
I don't use Suhoshin, nor do I want to (not that it is bad, I just don't want the performance hit.) Additionally, I like to set up a development environment with XDebug, and I like to leave XDebug out of my production environment. > 2. Both to be maintained for each new language feature as well as > opcode-caches. This will have the same benefit as integrating ZO+, as it > can be maintained inline with the engine. Derrick is doing a great job keeping XDebug up-to-date, so why does this need to change. In contrast, APC was having a very difficult time keeping up. > 3. Both stand as a barrier to adoption as many will not run PHP in > development without XDebug, and they won't run it in production without the > Suhosin patch. Many won't run WITH Sohosin in production. In terms of XDebug and opcode caches, I really do believe there is a big difference between the two in terms of the severity of bugs. A bug in XDebug is not as critical to me, as I can live with and work around XDebug issues (what few I've encountered) because I experience these in dev environments. However, an opcode cache is a production environment feature, which makes these bugs much more severe in nature. Adam -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
