|
|
Posted by L. Berger on 05/30/07 17:55
On May 30, 11:46 pm, "Gregor" <rmba...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "L. Berger" <straightfwd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180451838.251123.37150@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> * * *
>
> > 1. Minimize require calls. (And use require instead of include or
> > include_once or require_once).
> > 2. Use an accelerator, such as eAccelerator. This compiles your code
> > and basically boils it down to one include in most cases.
>
> * * *
>
> Could you explain these for me please, if you have the time?
>
> I can understand the obvious reasons to minimize require calls, but why do
> you prefer, say, "require()" over "require_once()"? And why not use
> "include()" for, say, a block of stand-alone text when you would rather see
> it omitted than have the page not load?
Sorry, it was not very clever of me to make a pronouncement without
explanation. First, let's compare include and require, two
differences:
1. Include will only include the file when conditionally appropriate,
require will simply include it. In reality, especially when using an
accelerator (more about that below), require simply becomes a part of
your code. This is better than the PHP executable having to do some
additional processing to figure out whether something was necessary to
include or not. It's always there. When it is converted to bytecode,
it's there.
2. Include throws warnings, require throws errors -- which is an
important consideration for production level code. An application that
I had worked on (during corporate years) used "includes" of pretty
important functionality that went into transactions. Because this was
production server, the "error_reporting" was set to "E_ALL ^ E_NOTICE
^ E_WARNING". When includes failed, the warnings were not thrown out,
the transaction went incomplete but done. In cases like these
"require" is quite important ("includes" with checking for file
existence would have been much slower).
So yes, it depends on your particular situation and what your
application does (for small apps either is fine) but require has
turned out to be more effective for me.
> I have never heard of an accelerator. I'm assuming it acts a bit like a css
> optimizer, perhaps sort of a poor man's framework? Does eAccelerator ever
> create bugs, like css optimization programs?
Google is your friend :) eAccelerator is the latest version of an
older caching solution, memturk. It's turned out much better for me
than APC especially when . Basically, these products compile your PHP
code into byte code, then store it in memory. As far as I know,
eAccelerator does not break any functionality and is highly tested by
the OSS community. There's a good explanation (and some thoroughly
unscientific testing) at these sites:
http://www.ipersec.com/index.php?q=en/bench_ea_vs_apc or
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/
-- which show that eAccelerator
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|