1) I would very like to see some real example where "static" is necessary?
2) "static" is really bad name. I suggest "caller", Marcus thought about "class". 3) I COMPLETELY DISAGREE TO ADD RUNTIME DATA INTO zend_function/zend_op_array. We can try to store "caller_scope" in execute_data. Thanks. Dmitry. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:21 PM > To: Dmitry Stogov > Cc: 'PHP-DEV'; 'Mike Lively'; Andi Gutmans > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding > > > Hello Dmitry, > > i guess there was enough discussion on the name and we do > not want to create another solwdown or BC by adding either > slow string comparisions or a new keyword. Anyway how can > this affect ZTS version? We are working on copies here as far > as i know. And the information is touched at runtime anyway > since we are doing inheritance at runtime. The way out would > be to push the neccessary info on the stack which would be a > big argument against supporting late binding because that > would be a major slowdown for php everywhere and not only > affect static method invocation. > > best regards > marcus > > Wednesday, March 1, 2006, 1:59:01 PM, you wrote: > > > I didn't look into the patch deep. > > But I see one critical issue: > > > Patched PHP will modify zend_function->caller_scope at > runtime. This > > can break ZTS version and probaby opcode caches. Storing runtime > > information in zend_function is bad decision. > > > Also the name "static" confusing me. > > Because "self" behave more 'static' (and proper). > > > Thanks. Dmitry. > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:03 PM > >> To: Dmitry Stogov > >> Cc: 'PHP-DEV'; 'Mike Lively' > >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding > >> > >> > >> Hello Dmitry, > >> > >> of course, what hinders you? > >> See original mail from Mike: > http://news.php.net/php.internals/21991 > >> > >> regards > >> marcus > >> > >> Wednesday, March 1, 2006, 12:51:51 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> > Can I look into patch? > >> > >> > Dmitry. > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:01 PM > >> >> To: PHP-DEV > >> >> Cc: Andi Gutmans; Mike Lively > >> >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Hello internals, > >> >> > >> >> it looks like either nobody objects or nobody has interest. > >> >> Either way i tested the patch and worked helped it a bit and it > >> >> looks good, doesn't affect anything else and doesn't > show a single > >> >> problem in valgrind. So If noone objects i will commit > this next > >> >> week. > >> >> > >> >> regards > >> >> marcus > >> >> > >> >> special mail to andi :-) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Thursday, February 23, 2006, 11:06:02 PM, you wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > I have finished a patch that implements a working version of > >> >> > late static binding. > >> >> > >> >> > I used the notes from the Paris PDM as my guidelines for > >> >> > implementation. > >> >> > > >> >> (http://www.php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html#late-static-bin > >> > ding-using-this-without-or-perhaps-with-a-different-name) > >> >> > As requested in the notes I reused 'static::'. I also wrote > >> >> a few tests > >> >> > not only to test the new functionality but also to make > >> >> sure 'static' can't be inherited or extended. > >> >> > >> >> > I also added a new function get_caller_class() which > >> >> returns the name > >> >> > of the class that static:: would represent. > >> >> > >> >> > (borrowing from PDM notes) > >> >> > In php5.* the following script outputs "A::static2": > >> >> > >> >> > <?php > >> >> > class A { > >> >> > static function staticA() { > >> >> > self::static2(); > >> >> > } > >> >> > >> >> > static function static2() { > >> >> > echo "A::static2\n"; > >> >> > } > >> >> > } > >> >> > >> >> > class B extends A { > >> >> > static function static2() { > >> >> > echo "B::static2\n"; > >> >> > } > >> >> > } > >> >> > >> >> > B::staticA(); > >> >> ?>> > >> >> > >> >> > This has somewhat recently been highlighted by different > >> >> developers to > >> >> > be somewhat problematic behavior in creating user > >> friendly APIs. If > >> >> > you want to see a possible use for it you need look no > >> further than > >> >> > the example ZActiveRecord API that was used in their > >> webcast with > >> >> > php|arch. > >> >> > > >> >> (http://blog.joshuaeichorn.com/archives/2006/01/09/zactivereco > >> >> rd-cant-work/) > >> >> > Currently the code laid out there is impossible short of > >> >> some ugly use of > >> >> > debug_backtrace() and file parsing :/. This patch of course > >> >> would allow that kind of code too exist. > >> >> > >> >> > In a small example based on the one I gave earlier you > >> could change > >> >> > the code too the following and have it print "B::static2": > >> >> > >> >> > <?php > >> >> > class A { > >> >> > static function staticA() { > >> >> > static::static2(); > >> >> > } > >> >> > >> >> > static function static2() { > >> >> > echo "A::static2\n"; > >> >> > } > >> >> > } > >> >> > >> >> > class B extends A { > >> >> > static function static2() { > >> >> > echo "B::static2\n"; > >> >> > } > >> >> > } > >> >> > >> >> > B::staticA(); > >> >> ?>> > >> >> > >> >> > As far as current userland code impact, there is very > >> >> little as far as > >> >> > I can tell. No keywords have been added, just another > use for an > >> >> > existing one. No changes were made to self:: or parent:: so > >> >> the change > >> >> > should be pretty transparent. The only thing that I > see remotely > >> >> > causing any issues would be the new function > >> >> (get_caller_class().) I > >> >> > added that just to complete the set so to speak. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
