I'd *really* like to avoid having two copies of the same code, though. Please remove the duplicated implementation...
Zeev At 18:24 12/05/2002, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > What I'm pointing out is that there are no 'inherent flaws' in the 'dog > > slow' implementation that we already had for a couple of years. If you > > want to add buffering, we can add buffering. There's no point in adding a > > specialized buffered implementation. > > Well, php_html_puts has several advantages: > > - it is buffering as you already noted without having to rely > on the huge output-buffering infrastructure. I have not > benchmarked it, but I do assume that it is noticably slower > than php_html_puts. > > - it is faster due to passing TSRMLS around, instead of > having to fetch it for *every* single examined byte. This > is especially significant in threaded environments such as > Apache 2 or ISAPI. > > - it is there and working fully. :-) > > - Sascha Experience IRCG > http://schumann.cx/ http://schumann.cx/ircg -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
