Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Tjerk Meesters wrote: > I could be wrong here, but I think it's not so much any problem with > require_once as it is to reduce memory consumption while using the > library. This happens when developers only use 30% of the library and > yet the whole shebang is loaded on every request ;-) > I think I have noticed reduction in memory consumption but not much. For one page I've tested with, it went from 1.58 MB to 1.51 MB (about 4.4%). Have others noticed bigger reduction? ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
On 02-06-2010 at 11:54:30 Tjerk Meesters wrote:
If people already have autoloader code and wish to use only one
autoloader
in their application or if they find the autoloader they are already
using conflicts with the phptal one then it would be good to allow
them to disable the phptal autoloader.
require_once "PHPTAL.php";
spl_autoload_unregister(array('PHPTAL','autoload'));
// if needed: spl_autoload_register('__autoload');
Would that be OK?
Wouldn't that cause issues when PHPTAL needs to load more classes
during the course of the script's execution?
Yes, but PHPTAL doesn't need to load more classes when PHPTAL.php is
included. I could fall back to require_once if this is ever needed.
--
regards, Kornel
___
PHPTAL mailing list
PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com
http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
>> require_once "PHPTAL.php";
>> spl_autoload_unregister(array('PHPTAL','autoload'));
>> // if needed: spl_autoload_register('__autoload');
>>
>> Would that be OK?
>
> Wouldn't that cause issues when PHPTAL needs to load more classes
> during the course of the script's execution?
I think the idea is that this code would go in the host app and could be used
to unregister the phptal autoloader as soon as it has been registered as part
of the require_once on phptal.php. You would only do this if you already have
an autoloader.
> The autoloader stack should not cause any conflicts; if a class can't
> be found based on the naming conventions of a particular class loader,
> it will go to the next loader.
That's quite true. If the already-configured autoloader in the host app knows
how to handle PHPTAL classes then the phptal autoloader will never actually be
called.
>
> The argument that one would only want one autoloader is somewhat weak;
> some other libraries also use their own loaders, so I see no reason to
> resist that for purity sake. I don't mind to be proven wrong though
> ;-)
It's less for purity and more for complexity and debugging. Having worked in
the past in environments where there were multiple autoloaders all doing their
little tricks (and, admittedly, before the spl autoloader existed) I can tell
you that debugging code can become a very tiresome business and bugs related to
the order in which php files are loaded become very hard indeed to track down.
One autoloader is a decent tradeoff between resource usage and code readability
and predictability. I personally believe 2 or more autoloaders tip the balance
away from the latter but with no additional benefit to the former.
Robert
___
PHPTAL mailing list
PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com
http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
2010/6/2 Kornel Lesiński :
> On 02-06-2010 at 11:10:43 Robert Goldsmith wrote:
>
>>> Why would someone choose to replace PHPTAL's autoload with something
>>> else? (I'm not implying it's perfect or such, just wondering what problem
>>> would such option solve).
>>
>> If people already have autoloader code and wish to use only one autoloader
>> in their application or if they find the autoloader they are already using
>> conflicts with the phptal one then it would be good to allow them to disable
>> the phptal autoloader.
>
> require_once "PHPTAL.php";
> spl_autoload_unregister(array('PHPTAL','autoload'));
> // if needed: spl_autoload_register('__autoload');
>
> Would that be OK?
Wouldn't that cause issues when PHPTAL needs to load more classes
during the course of the script's execution?
The autoloader stack should not cause any conflicts; if a class can't
be found based on the naming conventions of a particular class loader,
it will go to the next loader.
The argument that one would only want one autoloader is somewhat weak;
some other libraries also use their own loaders, so I see no reason to
resist that for purity sake. I don't mind to be proven wrong though
;-)
The "magic" required to get around my earlier __autoload() issue
should be the only thing that PHPTAL should be concerned about.
>
> --
> regards, Kornel
>
> ___
> PHPTAL mailing list
> PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com
> http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
>
--
--
Tjerk
___
PHPTAL mailing list
PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com
http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
I'd have thought that code would do the job assuming it doesn't clobber any
previously registered autoloaders. I'd prefer it wrapped up in a little
function, however, just for convenience :)
By my understanding, you don't need to actually call the autoload method
'__autoload' so you could call it something more specific to phptal.
Robert
On 2 Jun 2010, at 11:29, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
> On 02-06-2010 at 11:10:43 Robert Goldsmith wrote:
>
>>> Why would someone choose to replace PHPTAL's autoload with something else?
>>> (I'm not implying it's perfect or such, just wondering what problem would
>>> such option solve).
>>
>> If people already have autoloader code and wish to use only one autoloader
>> in their application or if they find the autoloader they are already using
>> conflicts with the phptal one then it would be good to allow them to disable
>> the phptal autoloader.
>
> require_once "PHPTAL.php";
> spl_autoload_unregister(array('PHPTAL','autoload'));
> // if needed: spl_autoload_register('__autoload');
>
> Would that be OK?
>
> --
> regards, Kornel
>
> ___
> PHPTAL mailing list
> PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com
> http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
___
PHPTAL mailing list
PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com
http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
On 02-06-2010 at 11:10:43 Robert Goldsmith wrote:
Why would someone choose to replace PHPTAL's autoload with something
else? (I'm not implying it's perfect or such, just wondering what
problem would such option solve).
If people already have autoloader code and wish to use only one
autoloader in their application or if they find the autoloader they are
already using conflicts with the phptal one then it would be good to
allow them to disable the phptal autoloader.
require_once "PHPTAL.php";
spl_autoload_unregister(array('PHPTAL','autoload'));
// if needed: spl_autoload_register('__autoload');
Would that be OK?
--
regards, Kornel
___
PHPTAL mailing list
PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com
http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
On 02-06-2010 at 10:58:41 Tjerk Meesters wrote:
Zend uses spl_autoload_register() as well I believe, so that should be
safe.
The main problem I can see is that if there's an existing __autoload()
function, spl_autoload_register() will replace it (as stated in the
manual). I don't think putting the autoloader in a separate file will
make a difference.
This will probably require a change in the major/minor revision
number, so that developers are aware that it may break their code.
That's a good point.
This might avoid the problem in basic case:
if (!spl_autoload_functions() && function_exists('__autoload')) {
spl_autoload_register('__autoload');
}
but I'm not sure if it's not too hacky.
--
regards, Kornel
___
PHPTAL mailing list
PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com
http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
> Why would someone choose to replace PHPTAL's autoload with something else? > (I'm not implying it's perfect or such, just wondering what problem would > such option solve). If people already have autoloader code and wish to use only one autoloader in their application or if they find the autoloader they are already using conflicts with the phptal one then it would be good to allow them to disable the phptal autoloader. Robert ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
On 02-06-2010 at 10:33:00 Robert Goldsmith wrote: No idea :) However, if you allowed for autoloading to be optional then if needed people could turn it off and replace it with an external system such as Zend's. Maybe moving the autoloader into its own file and telling people they need to require_once the file if they wish to use the phptal autoloader. Why would someone choose to replace PHPTAL's autoload with something else? (I'm not implying it's perfect or such, just wondering what problem would such option solve). -- regards, Kornel ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
Hi, Zend uses spl_autoload_register() as well I believe, so that should be safe. The main problem I can see is that if there's an existing __autoload() function, spl_autoload_register() will replace it (as stated in the manual). I don't think putting the autoloader in a separate file will make a difference. This will probably require a change in the major/minor revision number, so that developers are aware that it may break their code. Best, Tjerk On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Robert Goldsmith wrote: > No idea :) > > However, if you allowed for autoloading to be optional then if needed people > could turn it off and replace it with an external system such as Zend's. > Maybe moving the autoloader into its own file and telling people they need to > require_once the file if they wish to use the phptal autoloader. > > Robert > > On 2 Jun 2010, at 10:25, Kornel Lesiński wrote: > >> On 02-06-2010 at 09:56:23 Robert Goldsmith wrote: >> >>> I think autoloading is a good idea but please keep in mind that the app the >>> phptal is being used within may already have autoloading configured. a >>> prime example would be Zend. >> >> I've used spl_autoload_register(). Does it conflict with Zend? >> >> -- >> regards, Kornel >> >> ___ >> PHPTAL mailing list >> PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com >> http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal > > > ___ > PHPTAL mailing list > PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com > http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal > -- -- Tjerk ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
No idea :) However, if you allowed for autoloading to be optional then if needed people could turn it off and replace it with an external system such as Zend's. Maybe moving the autoloader into its own file and telling people they need to require_once the file if they wish to use the phptal autoloader. Robert On 2 Jun 2010, at 10:25, Kornel Lesiński wrote: > On 02-06-2010 at 09:56:23 Robert Goldsmith wrote: > >> I think autoloading is a good idea but please keep in mind that the app the >> phptal is being used within may already have autoloading configured. a prime >> example would be Zend. > > I've used spl_autoload_register(). Does it conflict with Zend? > > -- > regards, Kornel > > ___ > PHPTAL mailing list > PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com > http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
On 02-06-2010 at 09:56:23 Robert Goldsmith wrote: I think autoloading is a good idea but please keep in mind that the app the phptal is being used within may already have autoloading configured. a prime example would be Zend. I've used spl_autoload_register(). Does it conflict with Zend? -- regards, Kornel ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
I think autoloading is a good idea but please keep in mind that the app the phptal is being used within may already have autoloading configured. a prime example would be Zend. Robert On 2 Jun 2010, at 09:52, Kornel Lesiński wrote: > On 02-06-2010 at 05:10:07 Tjerk Meesters wrote: > >> I could be wrong here, but I think it's not so much any problem with >> require_once as it is to reduce memory consumption while using the >> library. This happens when developers only use 30% of the library and >> yet the whole shebang is loaded on every request ;-) > > Yes, that's the reason. Large parts of PHPTAL are used only at compile-time. > There are optional parts like filters, translation services. There's bunch of > Exception subclasses which usually are not used. > > I'd like all PHPTAL features to "just work" after you include only > PHPTAL.php, but OTOH I don't want to load classes that are not going to be > used. > > > Let me know if you find any problems with autoload. > > -- > regards, Kornel > > ___ > PHPTAL mailing list > PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com > http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
On 02-06-2010 at 05:10:07 Tjerk Meesters wrote: I could be wrong here, but I think it's not so much any problem with require_once as it is to reduce memory consumption while using the library. This happens when developers only use 30% of the library and yet the whole shebang is loaded on every request ;-) Yes, that's the reason. Large parts of PHPTAL are used only at compile-time. There are optional parts like filters, translation services. There's bunch of Exception subclasses which usually are not used. I'd like all PHPTAL features to "just work" after you include only PHPTAL.php, but OTOH I don't want to load classes that are not going to be used. Let me know if you find any problems with autoload. -- regards, Kornel ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
Re: [PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
I could be wrong here, but I think it's not so much any problem with require_once as it is to reduce memory consumption while using the library. This happens when developers only use 30% of the library and yet the whole shebang is loaded on every request ;-) On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:20 AM, romtek wrote: > Kornel, I've noticed this item on phptal.org: "Removed all require_once and > switched to autoloading". What are the problems with using require_once? > Roman > ___ > PHPTAL mailing list > PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com > http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal > > -- -- Tjerk ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
[PHPTAL] require_once vs autoloading
Kornel, I've noticed this item on phptal.org: "Removed all require_once and switched to autoloading". What are the problems with using require_once? Roman ___ PHPTAL mailing list PHPTAL@lists.motion-twin.com http://lists.motion-twin.com/mailman/listinfo/phptal
