On 6/20/10 2:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> On 6/20/10 2:05 PM, Lester Caine wrote: >>> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >>>> On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote: >>>>> ( Foregot to change address again :( ) >>>>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >>>>>> What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to? >>>>> >>>>> Dictatorship? >>>>> Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced >>>>> on by default! Probably more people use alternatives and have for >>>>> years? >>>> >>>> pecl has been around for years. Nobody else has submitted an opcode >>>> cache to pecl. We certainly would not have rejected any such >>>> submission, and we still won't. >>> >>> Well eaccelerator has served me well for years on both Windows and Linux >>> and has been listed on wikipedia for years before APC was added ;) Just >>> because people don't like restrictive source management does not mean >>> good code is not available. >> >> No, it is not enough to just have source code. The developers need to >> play along as well. > > ? eaccelerator is being actively developed, and builds are available for > more versions of windows setup than PHP itself currently supports so the > developers of it are playing along much better then PHP core developers. > And a number of alternatives have also been listed by others. So the > question has to be "Why should APC be given special treatment?" Is it > any better than the currently available alternatives or is it still > playing catchup much like PDO?
But they haven't made any attempts to add it to pecl nor release it under a license that would even make it possible to include in PHP. That's what I meant by playing along. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
