On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:35:13PM +0100, Emiliano wrote:
> "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.

    cool - i'll try to bump up the bundled expat then.

> >     -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.

    i think we have some namespace protection for "ours" as well.

> >     -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?

    yep, more and more ppl are using xml so bundleing reduces the
    "noise" on the ML:-) we did the same with the mysql
    client-lib for the very same reason.


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