Symfony developers Google Group

Re: [RFC] Cache component

2013-05-15T10:21:30Z

+1000 =)
However shouldn't the driver (in your example memcache) be more
interchangeable? The "key" memcache is now part of the definition right?
cache:
calculation:
driver:
name: memcache
options:
host: localhost:11211
Perhaps a cachebundle should provide a cache engine interface to

Re: [symfony-devs] symfony 2.3 what's next

2013-05-15T08:14:59Z

Thanks for replying. It's nice to see some discussion taking place on the
issue. I'd say benchmarks provide *some *insight into the baseline
performance that can be achieved with a framework. I think that's important
if performance is important to an application, which it often is for high
traffic websites especially. I think it's a well known fact that there is a

Re: [RFC] Cache component

2013-05-14T19:42:01Z

Hello,
Based on the poc I done, I tried to imagine how a cache bundle could be
used.
I wrote a simple example:
[link]
I guess these functionalities could be achieved without major problems.
What do you think?

Re: [symfony-devs] Re: [HttpKernel] Multi base/root dir support or not? :|

2013-05-14T18:03:20Z

I should probably say: "a core configured with global configs"
OK, interesting :D When it's only about the config, why not simply import
There should be 1 company.yml, not a 100 =) now it should be symlinked
(which is probably OK with composer script handlers).
However each project still imports company.yml hardcoded in the project

Re: [symfony-devs] Re: [HttpKernel] Multi base/root dir support or not? :|

2013-05-14T14:49:46Z

2013/5/14 Roland Franssen <franssen.rol...@gmail.com>

Thats exactly why I'm asking: "Core" sounds like "CoreBundle" to me :)

OK, interesting :D When it's only about the config, why not simply import
it like in

imports:
- { resource: parameters.yml }
- { resource: ../company.yml } # <--- :)

Re: [HttpKernel] Multi base/root dir support or not? :|

2013-05-14T11:41:42Z

It's about maintainable environments for multiple symfony projects (based
on a globale core, e.g. a product).
I think it should be more maintainable for non-automated environments. In
automated environments (e.g. capifony) symlinking is not a big deal as
there's a single point of entrance for maintenance. However with manual

Re: [RFC] Cache component

2013-05-14T11:28:13Z

+1 for POC of JS Simon!
What about cache engines in a symfony application? Currently configuring
the different caches in each bundle is problematic (complex like the
security bundle). I would love to see a standardized way of implementing
cache layers in bundles. Engines can have different backends/drivers.

Re: [symfony-devs] [HttpKernel] Multi base/root dir support or not? :|

2013-05-13T21:41:00Z

2013/5/13 Roland Franssen <franssen.rol...@gmail.com>

Hi,

My first thought here: "app/" contains the application-stuff. When you
split it even further, what does the other folders contain? If it contains
things, that you share between applications, maybe it should be a bundle
instead?

I wouldn't share configurations between applications, because I would

[HttpKernel] Multi base/root dir support or not? :|

2013-05-13T17:07:43Z

Hi,
I would like to start a discussion on multiple base/root dir support in the
HttpKernel\KernelInterface.
The basic idea is that an application can have multiple "app" folders for
different layers of configuration, resources etc. In a nutshell; global
resources (e.g. app/config/parameters.yml, app/Resources/views).

Re: [RFC] Cache component

2013-05-11T15:02:36Z

Fabien, is it safe to assume that the way to go will be integrating
Doctrine/Cache via a PSR interface, one that is voted?
If so, I think that the work JF Simon did is interesting (I haven't had
time to look on the PR itself).
If not, can you please provide a direction for this?
Especially when working with large traffic website I've found this to be

Re: [RFC] Cache component

2013-05-11T12:38:53Z

Hello.

I think the Symfony cache component should not be another cache backends
unification, but use existing ones (doctrine/cache, Stash) through the
future PSR cache interfaces. The value of this component would be in some
mechanisms built on top of the used backend(s), for instance:
- store metadata attached to cached items

Re: [symfony-devs] symfony 2.3 what's next

2013-05-07T21:22:22Z

I agree that in general frameworks cannot be measured equally in
benchmarks, but as long as the title of the Symfony website says: "High
Performance PHP Framework for Web Development", any concern regarding
performance should be investigated and not treated as an offense IMO...

Kepten

Re: [symfony-devs] symfony 2.3 what's next

2013-05-07T14:24:35Z

Benchmarks different frameworks are for those who doesn't know anything
about frameworks, practices and methodologies,
and wants a simple number in order to have something easy and quick to
learn and to share.
definition:
Benchmarking(1) = find a number in order to say 'COOL'
Benchmarking(2) = easy way to get few visitors

Re: [symfony-devs] symfony 2.3 what's next

2013-05-03T19:55:35Z

Benchmarks are totally useless imho.

1. The symfony2 that is used in this benchmark is a standard edition with a
bunch of stuff installed, for example the security component running in
front of all requests, AOP, Di and FrameworkExtra bundles etc. Comparable
to all the other PHP frameworks that probably don't have this enabled by

Re: [symfony-devs] symfony 2.3 what's next

2013-05-03T10:17:15Z

The benchmark is actually using production settings, doctrine metadata apc
cache, and some other tricks. Please check out the code.

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Eduardo Oliveira <