Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » spl_autoload vs __autoload »

spl_autoload vs __autoload

php.internals

Andy Mason

18 years ago
Hi guys, Can anyone shed some light on the advantages of the spl_autoload over the standard __autoload ? is there any ? kind regards Andrew

Alexey Zakhlestin

18 years ago
On 12/28/07, Andrew Mason <slackmase2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can anyone shed some light on the advantages of the spl_autoload over > the standard __autoload ? is there any ?
sure. spl_autoload allows you to have many independent autoloaders
-- Alexey Zakhlestin http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/

Stefan Priebsch

18 years ago
Andrew Mason schrieb:
> Hi guys, > Can anyone shed some light on the advantages of the spl_autoload over > the standard __autoload ? is there any ?
You can only register one __autoload() function, whereas spl_autoload() allows for a hierarchy of handlers. This allows for libraries to register their own autoload handler, for example. Regards, Stefan
-- >e-novative> - We make IT work for you. e-novative GmbH - HR: Amtsgericht München HRB 139407 Sitz: Wolfratshausen - GF: Dipl. Inform. Stefan Priebsch http://www.e-novative.de - GnuPG Key: 0x7DB67F7F

David Coallier

18 years ago
On Dec 28, 2007 6:56 AM, Andrew Mason <slackmase2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys, > Can anyone shed some light on the advantages of the spl_autoload over > the standard __autoload ? is there any ? >
Please use php-general for that kind of question.
> > kind regards > Andrew > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
-- David Coallier, Founder & Software Architect, Agora Production (http://agoraproduction.com) 51.42.06.70.18

Pierre Joye

18 years ago
On Dec 28, 2007 3:30 PM, <david.coallier@nyphp.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2007 6:56 AM, Andrew Mason <slackmase2@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > Can anyone shed some light on the advantages of the spl_autoload over > > the standard __autoload ? is there any ? > > > > Please use php-general for that kind of question.
This question makes sense here and brings yet again the question why such things are not available by default.
-- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

Andy Mason

18 years ago
Thanks for your replies guys. Part of the reason why I asked here is because of a previous posting a while back where Stas seemed to suggest that the spl_autoloader was superior but from reading the api i didn't know if this was purely from a flexibility point of view or if there was more too it. I probably should have been more specific in my question. kind regards Andrew On 12/29/07, Pierre <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

Marcus Börger

18 years ago
Hello Andrew, SPL simply allows two things: a) a stack that hooks into __autoload b) a default implementation that may be used (with ot without the former) We try to group functionality into extensions where we seem fit. And by the time I implemented spl_autoload stuff it made sense to put it into the SPL extension. Just because that extension was meant to be the home for more advanced OOP stuff. marcus Saturday, December 29, 2007, 2:28:53 AM, you wrote:
> Thanks for your replies guys.
> Part of the reason why I asked here is because of a previous posting a > while back where Stas seemed to suggest that the spl_autoloader was > superior but from reading the api i didn't know if this was purely > from a flexibility point of view or if there was more too it. I > probably should have been more specific in my question.
> kind regards > Andrew
> On 12/29/07, Pierre <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 28, 2007 3:30 PM, <david.coallier@nyphp.com> wrote: >> > On Dec 28, 2007 6:56 AM, Andrew Mason <slackmase2@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > Hi guys, >> > > Can anyone shed some light on the advantages of the spl_autoload over >> > > the standard __autoload ? is there any ? >> > > >> > >> > Please use php-general for that kind of question. >> >> This question makes sense here and brings yet again the question why >> such things are not available by default. >> >> -- >> Pierre >> http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org >>
Best regards, Marcus

Pierre Joye

18 years ago
On Dec 30, 2007 6:58 PM, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:
> Hello Andrew, > > SPL simply allows two things: > a) a stack that hooks into __autoload > b) a default implementation that may be used (with ot without the former) > > We try to group functionality into extensions where we seem fit. And by the > time I implemented spl_autoload stuff it made sense to put it into the SPL > extension. Just because that extension was meant to be the home for more > advanced OOP stuff.
I see nothing advanced in these features and a couple of other neither (we gave a short list already). Can we at least always enabled by in 5.3 and be done with it? It is annoying to have setups without it. Happy new year! :-)
-- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

Marcus Börger

18 years ago
Hello Johannes, I agree with Pierre here. How about finally making SPL built in always like ext/standard? marcus Monday, December 31, 2007, 7:31:40 PM, you wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 6:58 PM, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote: >> Hello Andrew, >> >> SPL simply allows two things: >> a) a stack that hooks into __autoload >> b) a default implementation that may be used (with ot without the former) >> >> We try to group functionality into extensions where we seem fit. And by the >> time I implemented spl_autoload stuff it made sense to put it into the SPL >> extension. Just because that extension was meant to be the home for more >> advanced OOP stuff.
> I see nothing advanced in these features and a couple of other neither > (we gave a short list already). Can we at least always enabled by in > 5.3 and be done with it? It is annoying to have setups without it.
> Happy new year! :-)
Best regards, Marcus

Greg Beaver

18 years ago
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Johannes, > > I agree with Pierre here. How about finally making SPL built in always > like ext/standard?
+1

David Coallier

18 years ago
On Dec 31, 2007 6:06 PM, Greg Beaver <cellog@php.net> wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote: > > Hello Johannes, > > > > I agree with Pierre here. How about finally making SPL built in always > > like ext/standard? > > +1 > >
Finally... +1
> -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
-- David Coallier, Founder & Software Architect, Agora Production (http://agoraproduction.com) 51.42.06.70.18

Johannes Schlueter

18 years ago
Hi, On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 22:45 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Johannes, > > I agree with Pierre here. How about finally making SPL built in > always > like ext/standard?
First some statistics: According to my numbers[1], which are as wrong as most other statistics about such stuff. 1% (36 of 3573) of the PHP 5 installations have SPL disabled. So imo having it not forced-on is not a big problem for users. The only ones who might complain about enforcing it are people trying to run PHP on embedded platforms, but they already have to do some changes here and there so I don't see that as a problem either. On the other side, from the internals point of view, I see benefits for us like that we can rely on SPL Exceptions really being there without #ifdef'ing around (see ext/mysqlit -> RuntimeException vs. Exception) and such stuff. So in the end I'm +1 on the proposal for 5.3. On a related note: Imo for users the real problems are different extensions, which we won't enable by default (due to their dependency on external stuff) and which might be available on some host or different php.ini settings. For instance I was once annoyed by zlib not being available on a shared host or png not available for gd. While I know that it is hard for us to reach these people (and most of us here aren't interested in shared hosts anyways) that's what I'd like to think about. Many people try to write apps which run "everywhere" - That's one of the reasons for PHP's success - but this also means they can only rely on a limited set of functionality... johannes [1] Counting installations of a random PHP app (phpMyFAQ) where the user agreed to send the data

Pierre Joye

18 years ago
On Jan 1, 2008 6:02 PM, Johannes Schlüter <johannes@php.net> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 22:45 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote: > > Hello Johannes, > > > > I agree with Pierre here. How about finally making SPL built in > > always > > like ext/standard? > > First some statistics: According to my numbers[1], which are as wrong as > most other statistics about such stuff. 1% (36 of 3573) of the PHP 5 > installations have SPL disabled. So imo having it not forced-on is not a > big problem for users.
The point is to do not have to worry about it being disabled. Besides that statistics are pretty useless in this case (consider a large intranet full of spless setups where you have to work and you are done...).
> So in the end I'm +1 on the proposal for 5.3.
so let enable it :)
> > On a related note: Imo for users the real problems are different > extensions, which we won't enable by default (due to their dependency on > external stuff) and which might be available on some host or different > php.ini settings. For instance I was once annoyed by zlib not being > available on a shared host or png not available for gd.
ISP not providing PNG? go to another :) But I thought we can't build ext/gd without png, I have to check that again. Happy new year :)
-- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

Mathieu Gagné

18 years ago
Pierre wrote:
>> On a related note: Imo for users the real problems are different >> extensions, which we won't enable by default (due to their dependency on >> external stuff) and which might be available on some host or different >> php.ini settings. For instance I was once annoyed by zlib not being >> available on a shared host or png not available for gd. > > ISP not providing PNG? go to another :) But I thought we can't build > ext/gd without png, I have to check that again.
cPanel does not enable GD by default.
-- Mathieu

Richard Lynch

18 years ago
On Tue, January 1, 2008 11:02 am, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 22:45 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote: >> Hello Johannes, >> >> I agree with Pierre here. How about finally making SPL built in >> always >> like ext/standard?
-1 I still don't want SPL cluttering things up for me, personally... More stuff == more things that can go wrong. Sorry.
-- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So?