Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:11:06AM -1000, Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >> Nicolas Williams wrote: >> >>> That makes me feel better about my lack of imagination :) >>> >>> >> I understand that. I'd rather lack imagination than memory. >> >> What were we talking about? ;-) >> >> I hope that wasn't offensive. Obviously I was getting a bit ticked off >> last night, mostly >> about *any* view that Java is a roll model here. I absolutely know it is >> not and felt >> I had said that many times. I was submitter and owner of that case. >> Trust me on >> this one. >> > > Well, my "I cannot imagine" comment was specific to the Perl case, not > the Java one. >
I know. I was only explaining my "bad mood". > >> Anyway, I just always loved that expression of Mr. Eckholt's and it >> seemed to fit. >> I've been guilty of it many times myself. >> >> It will take some careful reading to see how much of the Perl work can >> be seen >> as valid precedent. >> > > Given what you already wrote it seems like the rationale for multiple > Perl versions applies even more so to PHP and AMP in general. (And, > frankly, OpenSSL; again, see my comment about DLL hell not going away > as a result of not shipping multiple versions of stuff.) > I don't see it that way. The Perl case is *so* much simpler and has a version management scheme which seems inappropriate to PHP. Thinking about OpenSSL should make us all be very leery of opening (pun intended) a potentially worse can of worms. - jek3
