On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa <ivan.ender...@hoa-project.net> wrote: > > On 08/07/2014 11:08, Julien Pauli wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa >> <ivan.ender...@hoa-project.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 13/06/2014 16:20, Julien Pauli wrote: >>>> >>>> - One that relies on ftruncate() , and adds a <bool>$use_fallocate >>>> flag https://github.com/jpauli/php-src/tree/fallocate_flag >>>> >>>> Please, note that the latest proposal requires patches in different >>>> extensions, as I changed a PHP_API function signature. >>>> >>>> I don't know if Windows can support that. Pierre, Anatol ? :-) >>>> >>>> Tests are beeing written at the moment. >>>> >>>> I didn't implement this is user stream handlers, as this really is a >>>> low level implementation design that is kind of useless for usage in >>>> user streams. >>>> >>>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> If the first one is used, please, consider exposing it on the user-land >>> of >>> stream wrappers (exemple: `stream_allocate`) if possible. >> >> I find it very useless as user stream already have the ftruncate >> exposed to them. > > Hum no, this is very useful actually. A stream wrapper can be used to > represent a file somewhere else, imagine `ntfs://`, `smb://`, `aws://`, > `ftp://`, `afp://` etc. > > > >> The difference between ftruncate and fallocate is meaningless in userland. > > If `fallocate` is proposed in the user-land, then it will be logical to have > it in the stream wrapper API. That's it :-).
I admit that it would be nice for consistency, however I wonder how users will interpret the difference between ftruncate and fallocate. Julien -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
