[dev] Fwd: include vs include_once in Horde_Autoloader

[Chuck Hagenbuch]

Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>:

>> breaks things when calling any external code libraries like PEAR  
>> that perform class_exist calls (actually any actions that would  
>> trigger an Autoloader) in the case where the class it's searching  
>> for is named the same as any of our files in the current  
>> include_path.

Anything being the same? Or when our classes aren't properly  
namespaced yet? If the latter, we should just fix our classes. If the  
former, well that sucks.

> This might be a question to reserve for Chuck when he has a second.   
> He was the one that told me that we should be using include here  
> instead of include_once.  I had changed it to include_once awhile  
> back when we were first switching code over to Git.
>
> I'm not sure if his concern was due to the overhead of the  
> include_once call or for some other reason.  But I agree that with  
> libraries that we can't control, it may be a necessary evil.

Yes, it was about the overhead of include_once vs. include.

-chuck