On 01/09/2013 09:03 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > Rasmus > > > This is my worry as well. Especially when it comes to opcode cache > support. Most of the patches I see these days completely ignore the > opcode cache side of things which needs to change. For any large > language-level change, any implementation that doesn't also include an > APC diff, or at least a very complete explanation of how it will be > generally supported by opcode caches just isn't complete. > > > I see this as the exact wrong way a language should progress. The core > should not be bound to extensions, but the other way around. Otherwise > it creates this weird meta state... > > While I do see your point, to me it's less of an issue that it breaks > APC, and more of an issue that APC's functionality is not in core.
It effectively is a core extension. Many, perhaps even most, sites won't upgrade to a new PHP version until there is solid APC support for it, and as far as end-user visibility goes, they just see it as a php5-apc package just like php5-mysql. Whether one is in core or not is invisible to them. But yes, if it takes putting it in core to get developers to pay attention, then that is what we will have to do. It is however handy to be able to have a separate release schedule for it and I like the separation and modularity of it. Having more of the optional core extensions separated this way wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
