如果类映射实际上更快，为什么在编译器中使用PSR-0或PSR-4自动加载？ [英] Why use a PSR-0 or PSR-4 autoload in composer if classmap is actually faster?

问题描述

我了解您可以使用PSR标准来定位文件，也可以告诉作曲家一个目录来扫描类。 文档建议使用PSR-4 标准。还有一个选项以便作曲者创建优化的自动加载器，这基本上会生成完整的类映射。那么为什么要使用PSR-4，如果最好的方式加载是一个类映射？

我有意义的保持目录结构，因为这是一个很好的方式组织反正。然而，似乎合乎逻辑的选择是在开发机器上使用PSR-4加载，然后为生产环境使用类映射。这样，您不必在每次创建新类时重新构建类映射，但生产环境会创建一个完整的类，作为部署过程的一部分，而不需要额外调用

  ./ composer.phar dump-autoload -o 
  

如果类映射实际上更快，为什么在编译器中使用PSR-0或PSR-4自动加载>

因为它更实用。

在生产中，你可以使用一个classmap（ composer dumpautoload -o ），因为你不会添加任何新类，但在开发环境中，有趣的是有PSR-0或PSR-4提供的灵活性（即添加新类时没有任何操作）。

更新：，您也可以使用 composer install -o / p>

I understand that you can use either a PSR standard to locate files, or tell composer a directory to scan for classes. The documentation recommends using the PSR-4 standard. There is also an option for composer to create an optimized autoloader, which basically generates a full classmap. So why should one use PSR-4 at all if the best way to load is with a classmap?

It makes sense to me to keep the directory structure, since that is a good way to organize anyway. However, it seems like the logical option would be to use PSR-4 loading on development machines, and then classmap for the production environment. That way, you don't have to rebuild your classmap every time you create a new class, but the production environment creates a complete one as a part of the deployment process without an additional call to

./composer.phar dump-autoload -o

解决方案

Why use a PSR-0 or PSR-4 autoload in composer if classmap is actually faster?

Because it's more practical.

In production, you can use a classmap (with composer dumpautoload -o) because you won't add any new class, but in dev environment it's interesting to have the flexibility provided by PSR-0 or PSR-4 (i.e. nothing to do when adding new classes).

Update: you can also use composer install -o, it's simpler.

这篇关于如果类映射实际上更快，为什么在编译器中使用PSR-0或PSR-4自动加载？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！