On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Which I think we agree with, but you answer is a non sequitur, if you are > defining the 'next right solution', why deploy the n-1 build environment? I did not refer to the next right solution but the current and actual right solution, for PHP 5.3. We did not decide yet what to do with 5.3 but as trunk builds just fine for 9 or 10, that's not a big deal yet. I will post more on that in the next weeks. x64 support may also affect the choice. But I fear that to make our code base x64 friendly on windows (and consequently cleaner on other platforms) will require way too much political debate like this one (which was one of the most pointless discussion in internals history, until it moved to the vc6 vs vcN :)... > You would just be applying that legacy to the next maintainer, whom like > you, will ask you why they need to be dealing with VC 9 :) We have to keep in mind that the 2008 serie will be maintained for the next decade or so, no worry there. However as I said previously, no decision has been taken yet for php-next. > As a complete aside, Mladen reminds us on the httpd dev list that the Sun > JDK's > are built with VC 2003, and my other two data points were always what > ActiveState > offered for perl and python (and now, of course, what the strawberry perl > offers). > So while I'm not insensitive to the PHP community, those are the four major > languages that could be deployed in-process which can suffer all sorts of > incompatibility with one another, and with httpd itself :) As far as I remember the JDK is crt independent. No idea about the other. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
