Chris Chabot wrote:
Hi Dennis,
Very weird to hear this report from you, at my work i use APC
extensively in various production envirioments, and without any
problems.
Including (obviously) in many situations where require_once() is used
very frequently, and without a single problem..
Sounds like there might have been a miss-configuration? Or didn't you
name the php files .php ? (if you use a different extention, try adding
that extention to the apc options).
Personally i use:
extension = apc.so
apc.enabled=1
apc.shm_segments=1
apc.optimization=0
apc.shm_size=16
apc.ttl=7200
apc.user_ttl=7200
apc.num_files_hint=1024
apc.mmap_file_mask=/tmp/apc.XXXXXX
apc.enable_cli=1
apc.cache_by_default=1
And it's working very well for me, much more stable then eAccelerator
does (atleast with php 5.1.x)
The only known bug i sometimes run into is when you make 2 classes in 2
seperate files:
class A {
private $var;
}
class B extends A {
}
hit the page with your browser and then change the source too:
class A {
protected $var;
}
class B extends A {
}
And php will complain that 'B::var should have the same declaration type
as A::var'. Restarting apache resolves the problem :-)
As i mentioned, its scheduled to be included in PHP 6, and even some
core php hackers are involved in the project, so the statement that it
doesn't deal with require_once ... sounds like FUD to me :-)
See http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=7377 .
"Issue with dynamic inheritance and include order ..."
So it's certainly not FUD. Unfortunately there hasn't been any further
feedback to this bug so for now I have to assume that this issue isn't
going to be fixed any time soon. I don't have anything against APC but if
it imposes rules about your coding style (eg no use of require_once) then
that's a pretty big problem for anyone who tries to use existing code with it.
Regards,
Dennis
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
