At 21:15 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote: >On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 09:00:25PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > At 20:54 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote: > > > BTW: the code we're talking about is neither magic nor very > > > complex. andi, sorry i you felt me stepping on your feet;-) > > > > And yet you took it from ZE2 a couple of months after it was written, as > > opposed to two years ago when ZE1 was already out? Come on, Thies, > > sometimes knowing which algorithm to use and where to put the two lines of > > code is the complexity, as it is in this case. > > i am working on a zend-extension that needs to know the real > current backtrace. you wrote the ze-extension interface, and > you should know that it's *very*, *very* hard to find the > real callstack from within an extension (all extensions i'm > aware of have do it wrong).
It may sound like a product pitch but it really isn't - did you take a look at the way the Zend Studio displays stack traces? AFAIK, it's absolutely accurate, and it doesn't do any magic. I'm not aware of any problems getting the stack trace right with the extension interface. I can even help you with that. > after fiddling with it for a while i looked at the stuff andi > did and found that it can be apllied mostly (there _is_ one > difference) to ZE1, what's wrong with that? do i want credits > for it? NO. do i think this feature will help me and others? > YES. I didn't think you wanted credit for it, that's obviously not the issue. The two issues I did mention, coupled with the fact that Andi is the one who wrote the code in the first place, are the issue, IMHO. > you told me that you didn't even look into the patch. so -no- > you have no technical reason except if you think i'm stupid. Uhm no. Touching a delicate portion of execute() is dangerous no matter what. If it's for adding a new feature, then in my humble opinion, it is not worth it at this point. > "your" political reason has no standing in my opinion. To each his own. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you can do that in > closed-source, commercial software. trying to do that in > opensource will drive people away from you... As it did with PHP 4? Commercial software and opensource software have lots of things in common, and encouraging people to migrate to the newest version is one of those things. If you don't, you get into a support nightmare. It's as simple as that. > > > it. I did that in lots of features in PHP 4, and frankly, I think it's > > very lucky that I did, as the transition from PHP 3 to 4 was VERY > > successful. Imagine if we still had to fix PHP 3 bugs on a daily basis. > > i do remember countless hours that i put into the transition > from PHP 3 to PHP 4 during that time i became a member of the > "PHP Group" - but what has that to do with debug_backtrace()? Nothing specific, it has to do with new features. I added lots of new features that could be backported to PHP 3, when PHP 3 was a hell of a lot more popular than 4, when 4 was really just a beta. Forget my code. The session module could be ported back to PHP 3 with almost no changes, why wasn't it done? And you know, session functionality is something useful to literally everyone, and is much more important than a backtrace. If you want it so much and need it so much and are so furious about it, then whatever, backport it. Let it be noted that I firmly object, and that Andi objected as well (not sure how firmly :) Let it be also noted that I will firmly object to further backports of new features in the future. Zeev -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
