Talk:List of PHP accelerators

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Hello; I have had great success in stabilizing, "power-izing" and speeding Php and all cgi and html or webpage types using Apache htaccess. The actual process is relatively simple, but should or can be explained in detail. Basically, what it does is use the Apache AddType function and Handler to load pages, run scripts, along with Apache caching for compatibility and smoothness. I have created this page [[1]] for those who want to try it. I would be happy to contribute to your article, or you may use my page to do so yourself.

Any reason why this cant be merged into the extremely short PHP accelerator?--RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just feels that they are two different articles - one is the list, the other is a normal article. The PHP accelerator article is not that short IMO, and the blob of text it contains could probably be expanded and split into sections. Laurent (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list could be included in the main article. There really isn't much need to split them unless the one article gets to large which shouldn't be a problem for the forseeable future.--RadioFan (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should be split because their purpose is different and the PHP accelerator article is actually relatively long (its not just a sentence or two, which could serve as an introduction for the list; it's a full paragraph). If you don't mind, I've asked for a

third opinion on the topic. Laurent (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Howdy folks. Third opinion on offer here. I must say that there seems to be a disproportionate difference in the size of the two articles in question, and that the List article seems to be a logical sub-set of the PHP article. Given that the List isn't exactly huge (half a dozen items?) I would have thought it would be reasonable to include them as Examples Of PHP Accelerators under the explanation of what PHP accelerators are. If there were dozens of items in the list they might warrant their own page, along with a short introduction as to what PHP accelerators are, which would then be a duplication of the existing PHP article! So it seems to me that a merger would be a tidier approach from the perspective of a reader hoping to find out about PHP accelerators. Hope that helps! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer - if you and RadioFan agree for the move then I'm fine with it too. Let's merge the list back back to the main article. Laurent (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a rather than a merge, this article needs a split. Each accelerator could have its own article and the list article would just be the tables of features, currently located in the lower section of the article, with each accelerator name linked to the page about that accelerator. The tables of features seem to be the most relevant part of this article, so at the very least these table should be moved to the top of the page. The split would allow the reader to see what they came for, a list of accelerators, and if the reader so chose (s)he would be able to see more about each accelerator in a linked page. benvyates (talk) August 5th 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The texts should be rewritten to be more concise and less like marketing speak. The descriptive texts all say basically the same, only with the words of each vendor. Demonkoryu (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ "PHP Internals discussion". Retrieved July 12, 2011. is outdated.

The apc-module will not got to core in 5.4. http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?7,374842 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfgaida (talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of an opcode cache is explained several times in each opcache summary. I think it suffices to briefly explain the basics in the header and significantly reduce the separate items.

Totally agreed. -- Dsimic (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]