Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > dev > Re: [propel-dev] roadmap > Reply to message

propel
Reply to message

* = Required fields
* Subject
* Body
Attachments
Send reply to
Topic
Author (directly in email)
Please type the letters in the image above.

Original message

Author Cameron Brunner <cameron.brunner@gmail.com>
Full name Cameron Brunner <cameron.brunner@gmail.com>
Date 2006-03-28 15:47:22 PST
Message On 3/29/06, Oliver Schonrock <oliver.schonrock​@realtsp.com> wrote:
> > Alan Pinstein wrote:
> >> 4) Why do you want to do this? Before we go do this level of changing,
> >> where are the performance results that show these changes would make
> >> more than a negligible improvement? For instance, most of the getters
> >> are one-liners; and most of the setters are 3-liners.
>
> I am with Alan on this one. __call is a nasty hack, which doesn't
> document well and doesn't really solve anything (certainly not speed).

The documentation issue as far as i see it is mostly a moot point, its
frustrating but can easily enough be worked around, we can make a 2nd
tree that phpdoc can parse if its really that much of an issue, the
question is a lot about how it performs. We have a rather large code
bloat in propel generated files currently that is obvious on a site
with a lot of tables and references which is, imo, 1 of the main
things needed to be addressed in propel 2.

Before anyone says that call/get/set/watevr does/doesnt help speed (im
not sure weather it would either way myself, it still has to run just
as much code, if not more, less parse time on the classes tho and you
could load the extra join classes on request not before), i would
prefer to see some benchmarks of how they would react on a 'big' site.


Cameron