[mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 3:48 PM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: PHP internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
>> distribution
>>
>> hi Zeev,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
> distribution
>
> hi Zeev,
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Any news on this front?
>
> It's becoming harder and hard
hi Zeev,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Any news on this front?
It's becoming harder and harder to consider it in 5.5 if we have to
wait longer. There are enough volunteers to help, open it now :)
Cheers,
Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
On 29/01/13 08:03, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft RFC
for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
independent public consumption, which I hope we can be done with by the end
of
Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft RFC
for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
independent public consumption, which I hope we can be done with by the end
of next week, hopefully sooner.
- Ursprüngliche Message -
> Von: Zeev Suraski
> An: hakre
> CC: internals@lists.php.net
> Gesendet: 15:31 Dienstag, 5.Februar 2013
> Betreff: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
> distribution
>
>> > Based on an 18 month
> > Based on an 18 month release cycle, and assuming we release 5.5.0 in
> > mid 2013, 5.6.0 will come out late 2014.
>
> I wonder where you pick those quantifications from, according to
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess there is 12 month cycle/tact, and
> according to the release date of P
- Ursprüngliche Message -
> Von: Zeev Suraski
> An: hakre
> CC: internals@lists.php.net
> Gesendet: 17:47 Mittwoch, 30.Januar 2013
> Betreff: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
> distribution
>
>> > * In that RFC you write:
>
On 02/01/2013 12:38 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> In terms of what integration would entail - my intent was that integration
> means that it's on by default. I'll clarify that in the RFC, unless people
> think we should put that up for discussion..?
The hardest thing about that is figuring out the de
Chris,
We're talking about a very specialized piece of software - an opcode cache
- nothing more, nothing less. It's not going to do anything beyond
implementing the concept of an opcode cache in php - no extra features.
Rasmus pointed out correctly that this component has nothing to do with the
On 01/30/2013 06:47 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
This is the kind of info the RFC (and then user doc) should have.
I updated the RFC with two extra sections - 'what's an opcode cache',
This section extremely general and doesn't explain what the expected
feature set might look like. I'm not aski
On 01/31/2013 01:22 AM, Terry Ellison wrote:
> On 30/01/13 00:54, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> On 01/29/2013 04:47 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
which shows the dreaded zend_optimizerplus.inherited_hack which mimics
APC's autofilter hack. I'd love to get rid of this particular bit of
>
On 30/01/13 00:54, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 01/29/2013 04:47 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
which shows the dreaded zend_optimizerplus.inherited_hack which mimics
APC's autofilter hack. I'd love to get rid of this particular bit of
confusion/code complexity on the integration.
Ohh, this one. II
Hi!
> Because it was not developed at php.net for example? How many
I'm not sure what is the meaning here. Nothing is developed "at
php.net", strictly speaking. php.net doesn't have its own development
team that works exclusively for php.net, it just gets code contributions
from volunteers. And m
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:22 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: hakre; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
> distribution
>
> On Wed, Ja
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> > * In that RFC you write:
>> >
>> > "the integration won’t happen before late 2014." [if it's not bundled
>> > with PHP 5.5]
>> >
>> > Can you please outline why?
>
> Based on an 18 month release cycle, and assuming we release 5.5.0 in mid
>
> > * In that RFC you write:
> >
> > "the integration won’t happen before late 2014." [if it's not bundled
> > with PHP 5.5]
> >
> > Can you please outline why?
Based on an 18 month release cycle, and assuming we release 5.5.0 in mid
2013, 5.6.0 will come out late 2014.
> > Especially does it mea
- Weitergeleitete Message -
> Von: hakre
> An: Zeev Suraski
> CC:
> Gesendet: 17:09 Mittwoch, 30.Januar 2013
> Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
> distribution
>
> - Ursprüngliche Message -
>
>> Von
On 30 בינו 2013, at 16:57, John Carter wrote:
> Hi Zeev,
>
> Specifically would it continue to work with the Zend Guard decoder (as it
> does now)?
Our (Zend's) goal would be yes.
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 1/30/13 8:36 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
What if the guys at XCache asked for it to be added to the main
distribution, I'm pretty sure that most would say let it to go PECL or
Isn't the important thing whether it survives the RFC/voting process? If devs agree with
you that time served i
] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
distribution
> This is the kind of info the RFC (and then user doc) should have.
I updated the RFC with two extra sections - 'what's an opcode cache', and
'interaction with other plugins'.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optimizerplus
> This is the kind of info the RFC (and then user doc) should have.
I updated the RFC with two extra sections - 'what's an opcode cache', and
'interaction with other plugins'.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optimizerplus
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, vi
Hi
2013/1/30 Stas Malyshev :
> How it's more "outside product" than any of the other extensions we
> brought to the core?
Because it was not developed at php.net for example? How many
extensions thats in the core today was not developed somewhere at
php.net, or was either in PECL first? What I'm
> > XDebug together with an opcode cache is always a shaky thing and not
> > something we should be too concerned about. You would never want to
> > run both in production. It would be good if they didn't clobber each
> > other for dev environment purposes, but I am sure we can figure that
> > out.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Christopher Jones
wrote:
> The RFC still mentions Pierre helping with ZTS, which I believe is a
> left-over comment??
No, it is on purpose and a pro for those worrying about ZTS.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
On 01/29/2013 04:27 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 01/29/2013 04:17 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
It would be useful to link to the current Optimizer+ doc from the RFC.
I believe the link is
http://static.zend.com/topics/Zend-Optimizer-User-Guide-v330-new.pdf
Different beast. Something like thi
On 01/29/2013 04:47 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> which shows the dreaded zend_optimizerplus.inherited_hack which mimics
>> APC's autofilter hack. I'd love to get rid of this particular bit of
>> confusion/code complexity on the integration.
>
> Ohh, this one. IIRC that has to do with condi
Hi!
> which shows the dreaded zend_optimizerplus.inherited_hack which mimics
> APC's autofilter hack. I'd love to get rid of this particular bit of
> confusion/code complexity on the integration.
Ohh, this one. IIRC that has to do with conditional definition of
classes and the fact that script ma
Hi!
> I like it. It would be totally awesome if it came with a webinar or
> something where Dmitry/Stas explain how it works though. Understanding
> how APC works has always been a contentious point. I'd be awesome if we
> could turn that around with O+?
Once the code is out there, I think it'
Hi!
> I don't doubt any of your abilities, what I do doubt is that how we
> can consider an outside project directly into the core. APC would
How it's more "outside product" than any of the other extensions we
brought to the core?
> without a doubt be up to pair if there was more people willingl
On 01/29/2013 04:17 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
> It would be useful to link to the current Optimizer+ doc from the RFC.
> I believe the link is
> http://static.zend.com/topics/Zend-Optimizer-User-Guide-v330-new.pdf
Different beast. Something like this is more apt:
http://files.zend.com/help/pre
On 01/29/2013 12:30 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
By the way, I just realized the % gain wasn't all that self-explanatory -
it's vs. APC, not vs. plain PHP. I improved the doc to reflect both gains
vs. plain PHP and vs. APC.
Thanks for the feedback!
Zeev
Zeev,
It would be useful to link to th
On 1/29/13 3:47 AM, Martin Keckeis wrote:
From the perspective of the end-user this would be really great!
If it could really be done in 2 months -> wait for it.
best regards.
Considering the importance of opcode caches to any serious project these
days, I'd say a 2 month delay to get an int
Sent from my iPhone 6 Beta [Confidential use only]
On 29 jan. 2013, at 18:02, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> On 29 בינו 2013, at 17:54, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>>
Following the discussion at th
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On 29 בינו 2013, at 17:54, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>>> Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft
>>> RFC for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
>>>
>>> In parallel we’
On 29 בינו 2013, at 17:54, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft
>> RFC for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
>>
>> In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
>> independen
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Bob Weinand wrote:
> Am 29.1.2013 um 15:58 schrieb Derick Rethans :
>
> > I wouldn't bother making it work with ZTS. If you want performance,
> > you shouldn't be using it, and the other case I heard was "pthreads"
> > in which case it plays no role,as all of the script is
Am 29.01.2013 16:54, schrieb Derick Rethans:
> I like it. It would be totally awesome if it came with a webinar or
> something where Dmitry/Stas explain how it works though. Understanding
> how APC works has always been a contentious point. I'd be awesome if we
> could turn that around with O+?
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft
> RFC for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
>
> In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
> independent public consumption, which I hope we can be done with b
> -Original Message-
> From: Lars Strojny [mailto:l...@strojny.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:33 PM
> To: Rasmus Lerdorf
> Cc: Nikita Popov; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
> distribution
>
Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
2013/1/29 Lester Caine :
I'll get my head chewed off again, but can we no consider doing that as PHP6
given that 6.0.x could be a development stage. I would perhaps then strongly
lobby for 'only' having E_STRICT mode so things like 'static $this' go by
the by anyway?
Am 29.1.2013 um 15:58 schrieb Derick Rethans :
> I wouldn't bother making it work with ZTS. If you want performance, you
> shouldn't be using it, and the other case I heard was "pthreads" in
> which case it plays no role,as all of the script is in memory anyway
> for the duration of the process
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpri...@zerocue.com]:
>
> > On 1/29/2013 5:23 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> >
> > > Additionally, I don't like the precedent that this sets for future
> > > releases. That it's ok to break the timebox for some feature. In
> > >
2013/1/29 Lester Caine :
> I'll get my head chewed off again, but can we no consider doing that as PHP6
> given that 6.0.x could be a development stage. I would perhaps then strongly
> lobby for 'only' having E_STRICT mode so things like 'static $this' go by
> the by anyway? This would not rule out
Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
2013/1/29 Zeev Suraski:
>The RFC explains the pros and cons of doing that, I don't really have any
>additional reasons to add beyond what I already put there. I believe the
>pros outweigh the cons by a good considerable margin, but that's what the
>vote would be abou
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 06:13 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I fully understand this. The RFC claims that Optimizer+ is
> > already *now* fully compatible with PHP 5.5. And that it was also
> > compatible when PHP 5.4 was released. So the
Hi Zeev,
Am 29.01.2013 um 15:21 schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf :
> On 01/29/2013 06:13 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I fully understand this. The RFC claims that Optimizer+ is
>> already *now* fully compatible with PHP 5.5. And that it was also
>> compatible when PHP 5.4 was released. So the
2013/1/29 Zeev Suraski :
> I'd would of course prefer that we evaluate the proposal based on the
> substance and not on other factors, but that said, I fully respect your
> position and wouldn't hold it against you if you vote 'no'...
My vote will ofcourse also take the RFC into consideration, els
On 01/29/2013 06:13 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> I'm not sure I fully understand this. The RFC claims that Optimizer+ is
> already *now* fully compatible with PHP 5.5. And that it was also
> compatible when PHP 5.4 was released. So they lack of a working and free
> opcode cache clearly wasn't the iss
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 05:30 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
>
> > 2) Isn't APC the standard? Is it in such bad shape it is not even being
> > considered any longer?
>
> As it currently stands from a developer participation standpoint it is
> not viable. I
> -Original Message-
> From: kalle@gmail.com [mailto:kalle@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Kalle
> Sommer Nielsen
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:45 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Op
On 01/29/2013 05:30 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
> 2) Isn't APC the standard? Is it in such bad shape it is not even being
> considered any longer?
As it currently stands from a developer participation standpoint it is
not viable. I outlined the issues in a previous post.
You also have to take into
> -Original Message-
> From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpri...@zerocue.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:30 PM
> To: Anthony Ferrara
> Cc: Tyler Sommer; Zeev Suraski; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
>
2013/1/29 Zeev Suraski :
> The RFC explains the pros and cons of doing that, I don't really have any
> additional reasons to add beyond what I already put there. I believe the
> pros outweigh the cons by a good considerable margin, but that's what the
> vote would be about. Perhaps the one thing
Hi Pierre
2013/1/29 Pierre Joye :
> It is not done yet. But given that the code is clean and easily
> maintainable, it could be much more efficient for us to focus on one
> extension and make it rock instead of trying to get each of them work
> well. As Rasmus stated, between the opcode/engine and
> -Original Message-
> From: kalle@gmail.com [mailto:kalle@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Kalle
> Sommer Nielsen
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:28 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Op
On 1/29/2013 5:23 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Additionally, I don't like the precedent that this sets for future
releases. That it's ok to break the timebox for some feature. In this case
I think we can justify it, but future cases may use this to justify waiting
when it's not completely justified
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi Zeev
>
> 2013/1/29 Zeev Suraski :
>> In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
>> independent public consumption, which I hope we can be done with by the end
>> of next week, hopefully sooner.
>
> I'm sorry, b
Hi Zeev
2013/1/29 Zeev Suraski :
> In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
> independent public consumption, which I hope we can be done with by the end
> of next week, hopefully sooner.
I'm sorry, but I don't see why we out of a sudden should consider
adding a Zend produ
On 29 January 2013 11:23, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Zeev,
>
> First off, very nice job on the RFC. I definitely like what's happening
> here.
>
> As far as delaying 5.5, I have mixed feelings. I think we should definitely
> consider the delay, but only in a time-boxed format. So if we say "1
> mon
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Florin Razvan Patan wrote:
> Thank you for this great initiative!
>
> As a user, I could definitely wait for 2-3 more months and get
> a good implementation/integration of this rather that have to
> wait for at least one year.
>
> I think it would also be nice if
Zeev,
First off, very nice job on the RFC. I definitely like what's happening
here.
As far as delaying 5.5, I have mixed feelings. I think we should definitely
consider the delay, but only in a time-boxed format. So if we say "1
month", then if it's not ready to be committed in that month, it doe
This is really exciting!
As a user, I say allow a delay to get this into 5.5. I was kind of disappointed
that some cache wasn't bundled with 5.4. It's been too long that this very
important piece has been separate from the core.
Cheers
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
Thank you for this great initiative!
As a user, I could definitely wait for 2-3 more months and get
a good implementation/integration of this rather that have to
wait for at least one year.
I think it would also be nice if this could come as default
enabled since this way people would be able to
On 01/29/2013 10:47 AM, Martin Keckeis wrote:
From the perspective of the end-user this would be really great!
If it could really be done in 2 months -> wait for it.
Why should we break the PHP release process by 2 months+ to include O+ ?
There are alternatives (APC to name one) and O+ might
On 2013/1/29 16:38, Laruence wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
wrote:
On 29/01/13 09:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
[snip]
(My guess is that it will show WP being slower and with a more dramatic
improvement.)
By the way, I just realized the % gain wasn't all that self-exp
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
wrote:
> On 29/01/13 09:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> (My guess is that it will show WP being slower and with a more dramatic
>>> improvement.)
>>
>> By the way, I just realized the % gain wasn't all that self-explanatory -
>> it's
On 29/01/13 09:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
[snip]
(My guess is that it will show WP being slower and with a more dramatic
improvement.)
By the way, I just realized the % gain wasn't all that self-explanatory -
it's vs. APC, not vs. plain PHP. I improved the doc to reflect both gains
vs. plain PHP
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan McCue [mailto:li...@rotorised.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:13 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
> distribution
>
> Zeev Suras
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> One important part missing is the actual compatibility/support of thread
> safe
>> PHP. I know that Zend mostly care about NTS since quite some time and
> that
>> worries me a lot to bundle something that is not working well in thread
> safe
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft RFC
> for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
>
> In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
> independent public consumption, which I hope
> One important part missing is the actual compatibility/support of thread
safe
> PHP. I know that Zend mostly care about NTS since quite some time and
that
> worries me a lot to bundle something that is not working well in thread
safe
> mode. I would consider that as a stopping point. I mean, not
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft RFC
> for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
Hey Zeev,
I see in the Benchmarks you tested with WordPress 2.1.1, however this
release is roughly 5 years old. Is it possible to get an updated test
with 3.5.1
hi Zeev!
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft RFC
> for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
>
> In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
> independent public consumption, wh
All,
Following the discussion at the end of last week, I prepared a draft RFC
for the inclusion of Optimizer+ in PHP.
In parallel we’re in the process of prepping the source code for
independent public consumption, which I hope we can be done with by the end
of next week, hopefully sooner.
h
75 matches
Mail list logo
