On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> Well, it's time for me to remind about the techique many use (and some
> frameworks provide it out of the box) - the application file concatination
> to speed up file loading.
> Yii framework provides a Yiilite.php file for this, that includ
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:44 AM, John LeSueur wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Jannik Zschiesche >wrote:
>
> >
> > Am 15.04.2012 08:20, schrieb John LeSueur:
> >
> > Since you're looking for input, specifically on the compromise, let's
> try
> >> to figure out what's possible. The RFC p
Well, it's time for me to remind about the techique many use (and some
frameworks provide it out of the box) - the application file concatination
to speed up file loading.
Yii framework provides a Yiilite.php file for this, that includes mostly
used core classes in one big file.that loads much fast
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Jannik Zschiesche wrote:
>
> Am 15.04.2012 08:20, schrieb John LeSueur:
>
> Since you're looking for input, specifically on the compromise, let's try
>> to figure out what's possible. The RFC proposes .phpp files that can only
>> include other .phpp files. Others
Am 15.04.2012 08:20, schrieb John LeSueur:
Since you're looking for input, specifically on the compromise, let's try
to figure out what's possible. The RFC proposes .phpp files that can only
include other .phpp files. Others want .phpp files that can include .php
files. There are two ways I can
On 15/04/12 16:29, Kris Craig wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:20 PM, John LeSueur wrote:
>
>
> The second thing that still needs nailing down as far as implementation is
> how to determine parsing mode. If it has to be specified at include time,
> then we're putting the burden on whoever writes
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> I object significantly to a few points here. One is the concept of a
>>> > magic file extension. Why should a file behave differently just
>>> > because of a different extension? In general, extensions are human
>>
Kris Craig wrote:
I object significantly to a few points here. One is the concept of a
> magic file extension. Why should a file behave differently just
> because of a different extension? In general, extensions are human
> readable clues to what's in the file. Yes, they are usually used f
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:20 PM, John LeSueur wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara > >wrote:
>>
>> > Kris,
>> >
>> > > As discussed on other threads, PHPP files that are called directly
>> from
>> > the
>> > > webse
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara >wrote:
>
> > Kris,
> >
> > > As discussed on other threads, PHPP files that are called directly from
> > the
> > > webserver are handled by the SAPI handler and thus don't need any
> special
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Kris,
>
> > As discussed on other threads, PHPP files that are called directly from
> the
> > webserver are handled by the SAPI handler and thus don't need any special
> > identification.
>
> Except that they do. Right now, SAPI handlers
Kris,
> As discussed on other threads, PHPP files that are called directly from the
> webserver are handled by the SAPI handler and thus don't need any special
> identification.
Except that they do. Right now, SAPI handlers just invoke PHP. So
there would need to be some way of communicating th
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Kris,
>
> > You do realize you just proved my point, right? I said that, because
> only a
> > small few people were actually participating in this thread, it would be
> > completely disingenuous for one side or the other to claim to repres
Kris,
> You do realize you just proved my point, right? I said that, because only a
> small few people were actually participating in this thread, it would be
> completely disingenuous for one side or the other to claim to represent the
> majority opinion. The fact that you stepped in does not c
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Sherif Ramadan wrote:
> > Please review these things, *then *post a response. Thank you.
> >
> > --Kris
> >
> >
>
> Alright, perhaps we should address one thing at a time. Since you feel
> you are repeating yourself I will alleviate repetition with manageable
> qu
> Please review these things, *then *post a response. Thank you.
>
> --Kris
>
>
Alright, perhaps we should address one thing at a time. Since you feel
you are repeating yourself I will alleviate repetition with manageable
questions that are fair and concise. I start reading your RFC and the
very
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Kris,
>
> > It's worth noting that there are already two other similar RFCs that have
> > been proposed and other people have expressed interest in this idea.
> Most
> > of the opposition on this thread has come from 2 people, one of whom
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> Please review these things, *then *post a response. Thank you.
>>
> If you want this SO badly, just fork a copy of PHP and implement it how
> you want it. That is at least the good thing to come out of moving the code
Kris,
> It's worth noting that there are already two other similar RFCs that have
> been proposed and other people have expressed interest in this idea. Most
> of the opposition on this thread has come from 2 people, one of whom has
> been mostly posting hyperbolic claims and scare tactics. Ther
Kris Craig wrote:
Please review these things, *then *post a response. Thank you.
If you want this SO badly, just fork a copy of PHP and implement it how you want
it. That is at least the good thing to come out of moving the code management
yet again ... if others want it as well they can clone
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sherif Ramadan wrote:
> Let me say that I've been following this thread for some time now and what
> I'm
> seeing is a lot of poorly communicated ideas with very little thought
> and a lot of
> snappy retort.
>
> > We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Just b
Let me say that I've been following this thread for some time now and what I'm
seeing is a lot of poorly communicated ideas with very little thought
and a lot of
snappy retort.
> We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Just because more immediate
> concerns exist doesn't mean that looking at l
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> > From: Arvids Godjuks
> > To: Kris Craig
> > Cc: PHP internals list , Yasuo Ohgaki <
> yohg...@ohgaki.net>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:26:16 +0300
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New .phpp File Type for Pure-Code PHP
> Scripts
> > Wel
Hi,
2012/4/15 Rasmus Schultz :
> the closing tag isn't even
> required to begin with, so you can really think of " file-header.
If it is supposed to exist always at the beginning of files.
Anyway, file extension should not matter and it should be
a configuration as it is now. i.e. .phps for php
> From: Arvids Godjuks
> To: Kris Craig
> Cc: PHP internals list , Yasuo Ohgaki
>
> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:26:16 +0300
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New .phpp File Type for Pure-Code PHP Scripts
> Well, I just don't know how i can appeal to common sence to some people on
> the list anymore.
25 matches
Mail list logo
