hi Sanford,
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Sanford Whiteman
wrote:
>> There are native APIs for that (read: non .net, aka C) on Windows
>
> Well aware of that. The EXE does use the Win32 API, not a .NET
> wrapper. I've used that API ever since it's been documented.
Right, but these APIs can an
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 07:21:00 +0100):
>http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130213-5.4.11-5.5.0devvc11.html
>
>We did not update the templates for the report, please read the table as:
>
>- No Cache:
> . 5.5 VC11 PGO vs 5.4 VC9 PGO
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 07:21:00 +0100):
>>http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130213-5.4.11-5.5.0devvc11.html
>>
>>We did not update the templates for the report, please read t
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:54:03 +0100):
>On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130213-5.4.11-5.5.0devvc11.html
>>
>> Is that the column 5.5.0devvc11 under APC -igbinary? I have a Drupal7
>> s
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:54:03 +0100):
>>On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>
http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130213-5.4.11-5.5.0devvc11.html
>>>
>>> Is that the
I assume that something is functionally wrong on Symfony/O+:
Symfony, IIS, cache, PHP5.5.0devvc11: 2195
Symfony, IIS, cache, PHP5.5.0devvc11: 1919
Symfony, IIS, cache, PHP5.5.0devvc11: 2127
There was a previous report that Twig did not work at all with
optimizations enabled.
Damien
On Fri, Feb
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> >>Mediawiki is slower because it does not support yet O+ for usercache,
> >>along other things.
> >
> > Is the same the case with Symfony?
>
> no, MediaWiki caching modules only support APC or Wincache so far.
As far as I understand, O+ does
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Damien Tournoud wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >
> > >>Mediawiki is slower because it does not support yet O+ for usercache,
> > >>along other things.
> > >
> > > Is the same the case with Symfony?
> >
> > no, MediaWiki caching mod
Hello everyone,
As you may know, Zend recently open sourced ZendOptimizer+ with a PHP
Licence.
We are planning to merge it to PHP5.5 Core (discussions on Mailing lists
and IRC) and have it bundled with PHP5.5 final release stable.
For this, we need to merge new code to 5.5 as well as have a testi
On 02/14/2013 03:03 PM, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote:
Hi internal,
A missing feature in PHP is a file system watcher/monitoring available
for almost all platforms. On Linux, we have inotify (available in PHP
through pecl/inotify), on Mac OS X, we have /dev/fsevents (not
available in PHP, since
2013/2/15 Julien Pauli :
> Hello everyone,
>
> As you may know, Zend recently open sourced ZendOptimizer+ with a PHP
> Licence.
> We are planning to merge it to PHP5.5 Core (discussions on Mailing lists
> and IRC) and have it bundled with PHP5.5 final release stable.
Correct me if I am wrong, but
Hi Victor,
On 15/02/13 12:43, Victor Berchet wrote:
On 02/14/2013 03:03 PM, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote:
Hi internal,
A missing feature in PHP is a file system watcher/monitoring
available for almost all platforms. On Linux, we have inotify
(available in PHP through pecl/inotify), on Mac OS X
On 14/02/13 18:02, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
2013/2/14 Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa :
I have written: “On Linux, we have inotify (available in PHP through
pecl/inotify)”, so yup, I know for inotify :-). I propose to gather all
these API and give a pro
On 15/02/13 14:20, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
2013/2/15 Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
Hi Stas,
On 14/02/13 22:37, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
A missing feature in PHP is a file system watcher/monitoring available
for almost all platforms. On Linux, we have inotify (available in PHP
through pecl/inotify
2013/2/15 Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
> On 15/02/13 14:20, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
>
>> 2013/2/15 Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
>>
>> Hi Stas,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/02/13 22:37, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
A missing feature in PHP is a file system watcher/monitoring available
> for almost a
On 15/02/13 14:29, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
2013/2/15 Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
On 15/02/13 14:20, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
2013/2/15 Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
Hi Stas,
On 14/02/13 22:37, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
A missing feature in PHP is a file system watcher/monitoring available
for almos
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> 2013/2/15 Julien Pauli :
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > As you may know, Zend recently open sourced ZendOptimizer+ with a PHP
> > Licence.
> > We are planning to merge it to PHP5.5 Core (discussions on Mailing lists
> > and IRC) and have it bu
Hello Damien,
> -Original Message-
> From: Damien Tournoud [mailto:d...@damz.org]
>
> I assume that something is functionally wrong on Symfony/O+:
>
> Symfony, IIS, cache, PHP5.5.0devvc11: 2195 Symfony, IIS, cache,
> PHP5.5.0devvc11: 1919 Symfony, IIS, cache, PHP5.5.0devvc11: 2127
>
Ye
Hi Julien,
Am 15.02.2013 um 13:05 schrieb Julien Pauli :
> Hello everyone,
>
> As you may know, Zend recently open sourced ZendOptimizer+ with a PHP
> Licence.
> We are planning to merge it to PHP5.5 Core (discussions on Mailing lists
> and IRC) and have it bundled with PHP5.5 final release stab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
so just to make this sure. We are NOT skipping the RFC. we are
planning to merge it before beta1 IN CASE the RFC get's accepted. I
believe a op cache is really important for the overall acceptance so I
hope the RFC gets accepted. Nevertheless it's
Hi David,
thanks for the clarification, sounds like a plan :-) I'm not opposed to
including O+, quite the opposite but I want us to stick to our process.
cu,
Lars
Am 15.02.2013 um 19:14 schrieb David Soria Parra :
[...]
>> I'm sorry, but you must be kidding doing such a change and skipping
>>
On 15/02/13 01:59, Stas Malyshev wrote:
(A) The op-code optimization should be integrated into the core compiler
and enabled through a GC(compiler_option) to be available to *any*
opcode cache -- or to the application designer (by exposing these
options through an INI directive.
Most optimizatio
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Jones [mailto:christopher.jo...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:25 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Zend Optimizer+ Source Code now available
>
>
>
> On 02/14/2013 07:21 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >>
Hi!
> Put simply PHP extensions should only reference the APIs exposed in the
> php headers. Zend has its own interface and extensions and since a Zend
> Opcode cache is SO intimately coupled with the Zend environment it makes
> sense to use a Zend extension to implement this. The whole idea of
On 15/02/13 10:25, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Damien Tournoud wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> no, MediaWiki caching modules only support APC or Wincache so far.
>> As far as I understand, O+ doesn't have any user caching support, ri
Hi internals,
for PHP 5.5 a new DateTimeImmutable class was introduced, which is a
variant of DateTime, which has methods working on a clone of the original
object.
There was no RFC on this and some of the design decisions are a bit
uncleared to me, so I figured I'd write a mail:
a) The DateTime
Hi Zeev,
I think people are keen to see Optimizer+ merged. Hopefully the RFC
can set expectations clear on what the short-term steps will be, and
what the bigger picture might look like. The middle-term tasks will
then work themselves out as we get to them (in true PHP fashion)
- What does "
I think it was done to ease adoption even though it was known to
violate LSP. To quote Stas, "As for established practice, everybody
expects DateTime, so IMHO we should leave DateTime as base class even
though it's not strictly OO-pure."
This way does let users sub in DateTimeImmutable more easily
> I think it was done to ease adoption even though it was known to
> violate LSP. To quote Stas, "As for established practice, everybody
> expects DateTime, so IMHO we should leave DateTime as base class even
> though it's not strictly OO-pure."
I can see how easing adoption would be logical, but
29 matches
Mail list logo
