"Thies C. Arntzen" wrote:

> > We use it a lot. Works well, supports multiple charsets, and is now in
> > as sane library format so internalizatin isn't strictly necesary
> > anymore (although there can be reasons to do so all the same, of
> > course).
> >
> > Is there anything specific you want to know about it?
>     -was the upgrade from the original jclark-dist painfull at
>      all?

We haven't seen any API changes ourselves, and I think we use a fairly
sizeable part of the API. We had our own version of expat-lib, built
from jclark-dist, and include file name changes aside, it was painless.

>     -are there any known incompatiblities?

Not that I know of, altough ISTR that apache had renamed some function
names for their internalized version. Our resident expat 'expert' will
be online in a few hours and I'm sure he can give you more details.

>     -do you think that if we upgrade the PHP 4 bundled expat
>      we'll hit any wall?

In what sense?

Just to satisfy my curiosity, why is expat being internalized when
it's available as a library? To minimize external dependancies?


PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to