Personally I would prefer reusing the name. I don't think that there are any users of the old extension as it hasn't been working for a long time and the libfann 1 is not available anyway. We could still leave the old sources for downloading. I would just release a new version of the extension which would be 2.0 (that actually shows that it's for the new version of libfann 2). I could add a note to the description that API for 2.0 is not backward compatible with 1.x as it is for example in imagick extension. I am not against fann2 but the reusing name in this case probably makes more sense and will be easier to maintain. Is it ok with everyone?
Jakub On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Johannes Schlüter <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:11 +0100, Jakub Zelenka wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Johannes Schlüter > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I was a bit confused as zif/zim is wrapped by macros and affects only > OO > > > stuff ... and PHP 4 and OO sounds unlikely > > > > > > > > There are these lines in the code that make a compile error > > PHP_METHOD(fannOO, __set) > > ... > > zend_internal_function fe_set, fe_get; > > fe_set.handler = ZEND_FN(fannOO___set); > > ... > > error: ‘zif_fannOO___set’ undeclared > > Ah, that's indeed a ug in the code. That should not be done. function != > method. :) > Anyways not directly related to the original issue. So what do you > guysprefer: > > - Reusing the name > or > - using fann2 > > johannes > >
