On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:45 PM, la...@garfieldtech.com
<la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> On 3/24/10 2:33 PM, Rene Veerman wrote:
>>> It's a debate. The dev team consider proposals and weigh in on the
>>> merits. I
>>> was a proponent for goto support during the development of PHP 5. We now
>>> have it. If you arguments are valid and there's no technical issue
>>> preventing it, and there's someone with time and skill to created the
>>> functionality, then it will happen. If not then it won't. I've seen many
>>> things added to PHP and I've watched and participated in the threads on
>>> internals that have lead to many new features. This is open source,
>>> opinions
>>> matter, but personal attacks and poor argument do not really make the
>>> cut.
>> hahaha... you dismiss what i believe to be valid explanations without
>> any counter-argument besides "more sql hardware!", not just by me but
>> by all advocates of threading&shared memory in php.
>> for some reason, which is still not clear to me, you nay-sayers refuse
>> to let a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE (not a "hammer", not a "fishing boat")
>> evolve to stay useful, relevant even, in a changing market.
>> and you're blatantly telling me to use a different kind of "hammer",
>> one that would force me to rewrite large sections of my existing
>> code-base, and one that i have told you i would find for many other
>> _valid_ reasons not optimal.
> And what you seem to be missing is that making PHP userspace threaded is
> such a major change to the underlying code base and architecture that it
> would essentially be a total and complete rewrite, and would require people
> to rewrite large portions of their existing PHP userspace code.

ehm, my newsscraper does threading via a fopen($threadURLonOwnServer)
-> fread(threads,2048)+check for feof($thread) + usleep(50ms) -> if
feof($thread) process($threadResults).

so with a hack, you can let apache handle the threading, today.

i suppose i could write something for shared memory in C++ but doing
so would also be a hack that has to be installed on each server,
rather than having it neatly as part of php.

yet if i can code 'm as addons, it must not be hard to include it in the core.
the paradigm "shared nothing" may still be the preferred default if
you want, but fact is _current_ PHP can set_time_limit(0) and
usleep(50ms) until it has something to do again.

so i refute it would require a rewrite of php.
both features i request for php6/7 can be put in as addons.

> So it's either you adjust your code to fit the paradigm that PHP is built
> for from the ground up, or the entire rest of the world adjusts its code to
> fit the paradigm that you think you want to have.

that's just not the case imo.

>> basically, you're determining my choice of options without me ever
>> having forced you to do something a certain way..
>> so you'll have to excuse my strong language.
>> it's just letting you know that you shouldn't butt into other peoples
>> business when it doesn't really affect you.
> Except having to rewrite all of my code to be thread safe would affect me.
> If you didn't want to have a discussion, which by nature has differing view
> points, you shouldn't be on a discussion list.
> --Larry Garfield
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to