Heh... passing a little judgment there on the design of frameworks,
ORMs, etc. are we?
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 07:37 AM, Tom Boutell wrote:
>> Hmm, but the stat=0 optimization is a major one; a cache that didn't
>> offer it would be significantly slo
On 07/04/2012 07:37 AM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Hmm, but the stat=0 optimization is a major one; a cache that didn't
> offer it would be significantly slower in production for those who
> know what they're doing, yes?
Depends on your code. For people who write code that needs to include
hundreds, or
Hmm, but the stat=0 optimization is a major one; a cache that didn't
offer it would be significantly slower in production for those who
know what they're doing, yes?
(I haven't actually tried the stat=0 trick myself yet and don't have
performance numbers on its impact. I really ought to though, si
On 2012-07-03 20:49, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
One one side it's good to know i'm not wrong, on the other hand it's sad in
this case.
Sure about one thing - xcache is worth looking at and may be a better
choise than APC and has better potential.
One thing sure - I haven't heard anyone complaining abo
hi Rasmus,
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 08:17 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> I for one would like to kill all the legacy features or too specific
>> features which are really unusable by any common developers.
>>
>> Other developers may disagree but it makes ve
