On 27 Apr, 15:09, cem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 4:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> > <snip>
> > <picky>The extension is not called SCA_SDO, it's just sdo.</picky>
> > </snip>
> > When I look at our package page [1] it's titled SCA_SDO although the
> > loaded package and the cvs repository directory where our code lives
> > still refer to it as sdo. So I think SCA_SDO is a valid name for it.
>
> > [1]http://pecl.php.net/package/sca_sdo
>
> Indeed the package is called SCA_SDO. But currently the extension is
> sdo: either sdo.so or php_sdo.dll. My concern is that if we start
> calling it the SCA_SDO extension, people will expect a SCA_SDO.so and
> be confused. And it does also raise the questions of possible
> migration of some SCA function to an extension in the future, and
> whether SCA and SDO are a civil partnership or just good friends.
I think at the moment they are just friends :-) If, as some point, we
were to move sca extension code into the package them maybe we would
also have a sca.so/php_sca.dll. For example, the tuscany C++
integration code may be kmore generally useful in terms of supporting
some kind of default binding for SCA . In that case I guess we would
extend the package we have. But, in the future, I agree that SCA and
SDO would be separate.
Simon
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"phpsoa" group.
To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
