| Re: Is there any situation where anything other than require_once is better? [message #171954 is a reply to message #171928] |
Sun, 23 January 2011 09:20   |
Ross McKay
Messages: 14
Registered: January 2011
Karma:
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"Leonardo Azpurua" wrote:
>> [require vs. require_once]
>>
>> But now I am going to start coding classes, and if they are going to
>> be completely context independent, they must declare their own
>> dependencies as "require" statements.
>>
>> And I guess "require_once" is the natural choice for this situation.
"Michael Fesser" wrote:
> In case of classes there's another very convenient option: autoloading.
>
> Have a look at __autoload() or better spl_autoload_register().
In such case, require() is sufficient because the autoloader will only
be called when the class has not yet been defined, and thus the file has
not yet been included / required. And require() has a (very tiny)
performance benefit over require_once() because the latter needs to
record and remember scripts that must not be reloaded. (OK, 2/3 of 3/5
of bugger all, but > 0)
--
Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia
"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." - Gandhi
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]