> De : Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
> > Don't we already have this problem with chrooted FPM? I haven't tested it
> more recently, but last time I tried, opcache would fail to invalidate the
> cache
> after updating the file. Worked fine with a non-chroot environment. Not
> sure if t
On 02/02/2015 07:35 PM, David Muir wrote:
>
>
>> On 3 Feb 2015, at 3:49 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/02/2015 08:38 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Opening the vote for :
>>>
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streams-is-cacheable
>>>
>>> This RFC proposes a generic way for opco
On Feb 3, 2015 12:31 AM, "François Laupretre" wrote:
>
> > De : Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
> > Doesn't this imply that "path" is the one true cache key? There are some
> > issues with that which we will have to address at some point. For
> > example, when running fpm chrooted you n
> On 3 Feb 2015, at 3:49 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2015 08:38 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Opening the vote for :
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streams-is-cacheable
>>
>> This RFC proposes a generic way for opcode caches to decide if a given URI
>> is cacheable o
> De : Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
> Doesn't this imply that "path" is the one true cache key? There are some
> issues with that which we will have to address at some point. For
> example, when running fpm chrooted you need more than the path. We'll
> likely need a more APC-like opti
On 02/02/2015 08:38 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Opening the vote for :
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streams-is-cacheable
>
> This RFC proposes a generic way for opcode caches to decide if a given URI
> is cacheable or not.
Doesn't this imply that "path" is the one true cache key? Th
