<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PHP Security class</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.brianhartsock.com/2007/04/12/php-security-class/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.brianhartsock.com/2007/04/12/php-security-class/</link>
	<description>The exciting life of a software developer and nerd</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:15:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: bhartsock</title>
		<link>http://blog.brianhartsock.com/2007/04/12/php-security-class/comment-page-1/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>bhartsock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:08:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brianhartsock.com/?p=23#comment-44</guid>
		<description>Any added layer or abstraction is going to hurt performance.  The key is to only use this where needed and not everywhere.  Specifically, data classes are the perfect place to use this security wrapper.

If you really wanted to speed this up, a custom abstraction that mapped functions 1 to 1 instead of using __call() and call_user_func_array() would help improve performance, while removing some of the maintainability.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any added layer or abstraction is going to hurt performance.  The key is to only use this where needed and not everywhere.  Specifically, data classes are the perfect place to use this security wrapper.</p>
<p>If you really wanted to speed this up, a custom abstraction that mapped functions 1 to 1 instead of using __call() and call_user_func_array() would help improve performance, while removing some of the maintainability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://blog.brianhartsock.com/2007/04/12/php-security-class/comment-page-1/#comment-43</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:12:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brianhartsock.com/?p=23#comment-43</guid>
		<description>This has a potentially huge impact on the performance though.  If every function call has to go through __call(), which would have to use call_user_func(), that adds a lot of overhead.

Right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This has a potentially huge impact on the performance though.  If every function call has to go through __call(), which would have to use call_user_func(), that adds a lot of overhead.</p>
<p>Right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Fierer</title>
		<link>http://blog.brianhartsock.com/2007/04/12/php-security-class/comment-page-1/#comment-42</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Fierer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:16:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brianhartsock.com/?p=23#comment-42</guid>
		<description>Hartsock,

What's up buddy?  Nice bit on the security layer.  Seems the Wendy's #8 drove the inspiration.  I'll catch up with you later.

Chris</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hartsock,</p>
<p>What&#8217;s up buddy?  Nice bit on the security layer.  Seems the Wendy&#8217;s #8 drove the inspiration.  I&#8217;ll catch up with you later.</p>
<p>Chris</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.507 seconds -->
