On 7/21/06, Ron Korving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, if they all implement some common interface, that would really be an
improvement too. And I guess in that case there'd be GZipArchive,
ZipArchive, RarArchive, ... classes.
People have a choice then; use the specific format of their choice and have
all the extras it comes with, or go for a universal approach and use the
common API as defined in the interface.
Yes, that's why I like to stay in alpha until we are sure about the basic API.
Still, I think options like speed/compression factor is applicable to all or
most archive formats. I don't see much feature difference among formats,
only in the libraries they offer perhaps (honestly, I wouldn't really know).
The only difference I can think of is that gzip doesn't seem to provide a
means for compression multiple files (without resorting to tar, but TGZ
support could of course be developed).
I have read and checked many archives format. That's why I prefer
specific extensions with a common API naming for all simple
operations. More than that, like a general archive wrapper should be
done in userland, it is much more flexible and easier to change.
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
