Re: [PHP-DEV] PECL vs. CORE .... was msession
I've been doing some work on COM that makes so that it can be used by other parts of the the PHP core, so I don't think it should be pickled because it would either make the HEAD code very messy with ifdefs, or would mean that you could only use certain releases of COM with the mainstream PHP releases, thus defeating the point of putting it in PECL. Just my opinion... --Wez. On 25/05/02, Dan Kalowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually Shane I would argue that ODBC and COM specifically should be moved the PECL. -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] PECL vs. CORE .... was msession
I would like reinstatement of msession into the main tree, and if you oppose I would like a serious discussion to take place on the developer list. If you support it, I need you to sound in on the discussion. Well, I feel like 80%, if not more, of the extensions should move to PECL, leaving only the bare essential extensions, and only those that are cross-platform. There are 111 extensions in the main php distribution, it's gotten way out of hand. If it were my choice the following would happen: Move to PECL: all non-cross-platform extensions all 'product' specific extensions (cybercash, midgard, etc.) legacy db extensions all extensions marked EXPERIMENTAL any undocumented extensions exceptions would be made for 'major' technologies like ODBC and COM, and those extensions required to install other extensions (zlib, xmlrpc, etc.). Binary distributions would contain certain extensions from PECL, for example the win32api extension, which realy shouldn't be in the primary distribution, but should be in the win32 binary distribution. Getting a new extension into the core should be very hard, and essentialy reviewed by the release manager and the major active developers. My opinion on this is nothing personal towards you, and I do think the move to PECL was handled incorrectly, but I'm not convinced it should be in the core distribution. I've spent lots of hours coding things I feel are very important, but that does not equal being important to a core distribution of a given project. Shane -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] PECL vs. CORE .... was msession
+1. Except EXPERIMENTAL ones. If an extension belongs in the CORE, it makes no sense to stuff it in PECL and then move back to core once EXPERIMENTAL status is dropped. Vlad Shane Caraveo wrote: I would like reinstatement of msession into the main tree, and if you oppose I would like a serious discussion to take place on the developer list. If you support it, I need you to sound in on the discussion. Well, I feel like 80%, if not more, of the extensions should move to PECL, leaving only the bare essential extensions, and only those that are cross-platform. There are 111 extensions in the main php distribution, it's gotten way out of hand. If it were my choice the following would happen: Move to PECL: all non-cross-platform extensions all 'product' specific extensions (cybercash, midgard, etc.) legacy db extensions all extensions marked EXPERIMENTAL any undocumented extensions exceptions would be made for 'major' technologies like ODBC and COM, and those extensions required to install other extensions (zlib, xmlrpc, etc.). Binary distributions would contain certain extensions from PECL, for example the win32api extension, which realy shouldn't be in the primary distribution, but should be in the win32 binary distribution. Getting a new extension into the core should be very hard, and essentialy reviewed by the release manager and the major active developers. My opinion on this is nothing personal towards you, and I do think the move to PECL was handled incorrectly, but I'm not convinced it should be in the core distribution. I've spent lots of hours coding things I feel are very important, but that does not equal being important to a core distribution of a given project. Shane -- -- Vlad Krupin Software Engineer echospace.com -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] PECL vs. CORE .... was msession
Experimental extensions are not finished, likely undocumented, prone to change, prone to bugs, etc. They shouldn't be in core at all. core should be entirly stable. If it's an important enough extension it will be recognized as such, and mirrored to core after it is stable. Shane Vlad Krupin wrote: +1. Except EXPERIMENTAL ones. If an extension belongs in the CORE, it makes no sense to stuff it in PECL and then move back to core once EXPERIMENTAL status is dropped. Vlad Shane Caraveo wrote: I would like reinstatement of msession into the main tree, and if you oppose I would like a serious discussion to take place on the developer list. If you support it, I need you to sound in on the discussion. Well, I feel like 80%, if not more, of the extensions should move to PECL, leaving only the bare essential extensions, and only those that are cross-platform. There are 111 extensions in the main php distribution, it's gotten way out of hand. If it were my choice the following would happen: Move to PECL: all non-cross-platform extensions all 'product' specific extensions (cybercash, midgard, etc.) legacy db extensions all extensions marked EXPERIMENTAL any undocumented extensions exceptions would be made for 'major' technologies like ODBC and COM, and those extensions required to install other extensions (zlib, xmlrpc, etc.). Binary distributions would contain certain extensions from PECL, for example the win32api extension, which realy shouldn't be in the primary distribution, but should be in the win32 binary distribution. Getting a new extension into the core should be very hard, and essentialy reviewed by the release manager and the major active developers. My opinion on this is nothing personal towards you, and I do think the move to PECL was handled incorrectly, but I'm not convinced it should be in the core distribution. I've spent lots of hours coding things I feel are very important, but that does not equal being important to a core distribution of a given project. Shane -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] PECL vs. CORE .... was msession
I don't see why msession is not part of the core PHP. On some levels, it is no different that mod_mm, or mod_files. My original proposal was that it should be part of ext/session. I was told that it should be its own extension. I think, before you guys decide, that you look at it. Simply setting session_handler, and session_path, you can have a cluser of PHP systems sharing session data. The daemon is very fast and runs on Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows. (I'm sure it will compile on Solaris, but I have ave not had access to such a machine.) -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] PECL vs. CORE .... was msession
exceptions would be made for 'major' technologies like ODBC and COM, and those extensions required to install other extensions (zlib, xmlrpc, etc.). Binary distributions would contain certain extensions from PECL, for example the win32api extension, which realy shouldn't be in the primary distribution, but should be in the win32 binary distribution. Actually Shane I would argue that ODBC and COM specifically should be moved the PECL. Not for the whole be my own boss idea, but mainly for the we can release when needed phenom. I.E. ODBC is only v2 compiliant, I've been working on upgrading it to 3.7... it would be nice to do small increments or something (god it will be nice to remove the TEXT bug reports). --- Dan KalowskyThe record shows, I took the blows. http://www.deadmime.org/~dankAnd did it my way. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - My Way, Frank Sinatra [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
