Hello Andrei, we have already a freaking complexapi to deal with and on the other hand we have fastcgisupport. What we should imo do is trying to drop complexity of our api and not increase it to an unhandable extreme and instead promote usage of fastcgi. My 2c.
best regards marcus Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 6:39:57 PM, you wrote: > We really need to settle on whether we want unicode.semantics to be > changeable at runtime or not. During early development it was > ZEND_INI_PERDIR, meaning that it could be changed in .htaccess and > VirtualHost blocks. However, the infrastructure to support this > flexibility was deemed too complicated at the Paris PDM. Basically, we > need to maintain two sets of symbol tables and convert between them on > the fly as well as two copies of each class entry. The latter was > especially problematic instead of just mentioning class entry pointer, > you had to access it like U_CLASS_ENTRY(ce). So it was decided that > unicode.semantics switch would be only ZEND_INI_SYSTEM and that is how > the development proceeded since then. However, there have come up > concerns that keeping it this way will make PHP 6 adoption infeasible > by the majority of hosting companies and users since they would have to > run two copies of Apache to support both modes. > We can go back to the PERDIR version, but that requires a lot of work > and not just in the engine, but also in a lot of extensions. I will let > Dmitry provide the technical details, but we need to decide which way > to go: > 1. ZEND_INI_SYSTEM and make people run two copies of Apache if they > want both modes. This is architecturally more simple and more robust, I > believe. > 2. ZEND_INI_PERDIR and let people switch modes as described above. This > is a lot of work and will probably result in quite a few edge cases > where we used to rely on stability of one mode (such as APC or > serialization, for example). -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
