On Wed, July 19, 2006 11:51 am, Marco wrote:
I would rather move more extensions from core to PECL, than from
PECL to
core.
From my experiences the problem with this is many shared hosts wont
install
non core modules, so the more modules moved from core to pecl the less
flexible php will
Antony Dovgal wrote:
-0.
I would rather move more extensions from core to PECL, than from PECL
to core.
I second that emotion.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
--
PHP
So this then means bundling more extensions by default and / or
better marketing.
What is the issue with simply not bundling all
known-to-be-good/stable/current extensions?
Admittedly, file size would be up. But I don't really see that as an issue.
As a windows user, I would just want them
I think its important to understand why shared hosts dont like PECL.
Some of the main reasons IME is that they
1. Dont know the author of the package
2. Dont trust the package to be secure
3. Dont know if the package will have a knock of effect on server stability.
They know the core package
Hi,
so it seems to me like several core developers think its a worthwhile
addition to core if the class is renamed to ZipArchive (if I understood
Pierre correctly in a private IRC exchange he is ok with renaming the
class).
The idea of a PDO for archives does not seem to generate much
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 23:48 +0200, Lukas Smith wrote:
EXPERIMENTAL is just a way to cover our asses against not being able to
break BC if we find out we screwed something up in a new extension.
Bringing something into core obviously gives us a larger testbed and so
new situations are likely
Bullshit. PECL is just as good as core.
It just needs more marketing. One good way to sell it to people
might be to put some most used extensions there. :)
If some extension is useful and needed people WILL find it in PECL.
--Jani
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, John Coggeshall
Bullshit. PECL is just as good as core.
To the developers of PHP and people with dedicated servers this might be
true, however in my experience this is far from true for mass virtual
hosters. If its not included in the core php package it wont be available to
the end user. So moving more
I agree with Jani here. It's a bit of a catch-22 but putting more
popular extensions into PECL should help.
-Andrei
On Jul 22, 2006, at 5:09 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Bullshit. PECL is just as good as core.
It just needs more marketing. One good way to sell it to people
might
The problem of web hosting remains, and isn't easily resolved. We already
saw what the situation is when it comes to web hosts and the distributed
.ini files; it's much the same when it comes to extensions. The better hosts
may well enable further extensions on request, but many won't -
On 7/22/06, Andrei Zmievski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Jani here. It's a bit of a catch-22 but putting more
popular extensions into PECL should help.
So do it and stop (plural form) to add all possible new rules to block
my proposal.
Also remove all the recent additions. no? So
My recommendations would be:
for (1): Let the build system spit out packages for the most well known
distributions which are similar to the windows ones, e.g. one small php
binary, many *.so in the standard package and a pecl *.so package.
Dedicated server owners or small web hosts usually
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding pecl/zip to 5.2
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Do you really ask me what Zip say?
You miss the point. If you do new Zip ... then I've no idea
what the object you get represents. However, doing new
ZipArchive makes sense as then you know the object
Hi Andi,
On 7/21/06, Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't want to clutter the list further, I do agree with
DerickMarcus on this. I actually like ZipArchive() better :)
You agree with Rasmus and Derick, as Marcus does want it in for all
possible reasons. However, it seems to
Many people (incl. php devs) asked me if I can include zip in 5.2.0.
Ilia thought it was too late in the game and planed to do it in 5.2.1.
I like to have it in, as experimental.
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I
never saw a
php zip implementation named Zip.
I was thinking the same thing. We can of course clutter the namespace with a
class for every possible file extension we want to develop an API for, but
maybe we can do the smart thing and do what PDO does for databases: present
a unified API.
I don't like the idea of having GZip, Zip, Rar,
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Ron Korving [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking the same thing. We can of course clutter the namespace with a
class for every possible file extension we want to develop an API for, but
maybe we can do the smart thing and do what PDO does for databases: present
a unified
A compression wrapper like PDO would be great. And they do all do the
same things more or less. Take data and compress it. Take compressed
data and uncompress it. Not that different.
On 21/07/06, Pierre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Ron Korving [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was
Well, if they all implement some common interface, that would really be an
improvement too. And I guess in that case there'd be GZipArchive,
ZipArchive, RarArchive, ... classes.
People have a choice then; use the specific format of their choice and have
all the extras it comes with, or go for
So where does this leave adding pecl/zip to 5.2? PDO is not core for
Windows so should zip?
On 21/07/06, Pierre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/21/06, Richard Quadling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A compression wrapper like PDO would be great. And they do all do the
same things more or less. Take
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Richard Quadling wrote:
So where does this leave adding pecl/zip to 5.2? PDO is not core for
Windows so should zip?
PDO is bundled in the core PHP distribution. Pierre was not asking for
Zip to be enabled by default, just to be a part of the distro.
Yes, exactly.
As
On 7/21/06, Ron Korving [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if they all implement some common interface, that would really be an
improvement too. And I guess in that case there'd be GZipArchive,
ZipArchive, RarArchive, ... classes.
People have a choice then; use the specific format of their choice
On 7/21/06, Richard Quadling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A compression wrapper like PDO would be great. And they do all do the
same things more or less. Take data and compress it. Take compressed
data and uncompress it. Not that different.
Then do it in PHP, it is very easy to create one for the
On 7/21/06, Richard Quadling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So where does this leave adding pecl/zip to 5.2? PDO is not core for
Windows so should zip?
PDO is not core on windows? I do not understand what you say here.
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
I'm corrected by Edin. Misunderstood.
So, why are some extensions bundled and not others? Surely all
successfully built, non experimental extensions should be part of the
distro?
On 21/07/06, Pierre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/21/06, Richard Quadling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So where
Hello Pierre,
Friday, July 21, 2006, 11:16:22 AM, you wrote:
Hi Andi,
On 7/21/06, Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't want to clutter the list further, I do agree with
DerickMarcus on this. I actually like ZipArchive() better :)
You agree with Rasmus and Derick, as
Hi,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I said i am fine, i don't want it. I just cannot accept the classname 'Zip'.
que? let do it with -1/0/+1 ;-)
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Pierre,
move to core -0 (as long as EXPERIMENTAL is being removed)
ZipArchieve +1
ZipFile +0
Zip -0
regards
marcus
Friday, July 21, 2006, 7:17:38 PM, you wrote:
Hi,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I said i am fine, i don't want it. I just
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Pierre,
move to core -0 (as long as EXPERIMENTAL is being removed)
You want it only if it is not experimental, you don't care or you
don't want it? (-0 has no sense, btw)
ZipArchieve +1
Let say you mean ZipAchirve, ok?
Hello Pierre,
Friday, July 21, 2006, 7:42:15 PM, you wrote:
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Pierre,
move to core -0 (as long as EXPERIMENTAL is being removed)
You want it only if it is not experimental, you don't care or you
don't want it? (-0 has no
Hi,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am -1 moving it to core if the EXPERIMENTAL tag file is present.
So I will count your vote as -1. I'm not going to freeze the APIs now.
Before 5.2.0 stable, the API will certainly be frozen, but I cannot
promise anything. But I got
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Hi,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am -1 moving it to core if the EXPERIMENTAL tag file is present.
So I will count your vote as -1. I'm not going to freeze the APIs now.
Heh? It isn't stable yet? Then why are you even suggesting
Hi,
if my vote counts, then:
move to core: +1
Zip: +1
ZipArchive: -1
ZipFile: -1
Not sure about other php-developers, but as for me - Zip means ZIP archive,
not post code or a fastener.
On 7/21/06, Pierre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:09:50 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derick Rethans) wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Hi,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am -1 moving it to core if the EXPERIMENTAL tag file is present.
So I will count your vote as -1. I'm
No, your vote does NOT count.
--Jani
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Alexander Pak wrote:
Hi,
if my vote counts, then:
move to core: +1
Zip: +1
ZipArchive: -1
ZipFile: -1
Not sure about other php-developers, but as for me - Zip means ZIP archive,
not post code or a fastener.
On 7/21/06,
, 2006 5:13 AM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding pecl/zip to 5.2
A compression wrapper like PDO would be great. And they do
all do the same things more or less. Take data and compress
it. Take compressed data and uncompress it. Not that different.
On 21/07/06, Pierre
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
FWIW, I'm fine with moving it into core if EXPERIMENTAL is removed and
it's renamed to ZipArchive.
Is that a new (double) standard? It used to be common practice to add
new extensions as EXPERIMENTAL to core. IIRC all the last PECL
extensions that got moved to core
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
On 7/21/06, Jani Taskinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, your vote does NOT count.
His vote counts. He is a php.net member (Summer of Code).
Since when does every @php.net badge earn a right to vote?
In my eyes only core devs have that right.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 19.07.2006 18:34, Pierre wrote:
Hello,
Many people (incl. php devs) asked me if I can include zip in 5.2.0.
Ilia thought it was too late in the game and planed to do it in 5.2.1.
I like to have it in, as experimental.
Please note
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 7/19/06, Sean Coates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony mentioned another issue: the headache of maintaining PECL code
between PHP versions. This is a valid point (and he can elaborate if he
likes), but is a separate issue.
I'm very aware of
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Even pcre can still be disabled.
That's on the todo for php 6 though.
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Pierre,
well Jan has a has a very good point here. Just as it was unlikely that
a class called PDO had been implemented a hundred times, it didn't cause
any namespace clashes. However it is fairly likely that some frameworks
bring Zip support and have a class named Zip. If not then there
On 7/20/06, Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although the zip ext is a useful thing to have, I think it should stay
in PECL as Tony says we're trying to move things to PECL... so a -1 from
me on the current proposal to add ext/zip to core with the Zip
classname.
Seems silly to have a
On 20.07.2006 11:52, Robin Ericsson wrote:
On 7/20/06, Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although the zip ext is a useful thing to have, I think it should stay
in PECL as Tony says we're trying to move things to PECL... so a -1 from
me on the current proposal to add ext/zip to core with
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 20.07.2006 11:52, Robin Ericsson wrote:
Seems silly to have a place like PECL where extensions can live their
own life with their own release-cycles
That's another problem for another offtopic discussion:
own release cycle is just a myth, because of the symlinks used
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:51:37 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Boerger) wrote:
Hello Pierre,
well Jan has a has a very good point here. Just as it was unlikely
Jan?
that a class called PDO had been implemented a hundred times, it
didn't cause any namespace clashes. However it is fairly
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:44:38 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derick Rethans) wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 7/19/06, Sean Coates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony mentioned another issue: the headache of maintaining PECL
code between PHP versions. This is a
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 04:27:19 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rainer Müller) wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I never
saw a php zip implementation named Zip.
Uh, well this already was on thedailywtf...
See here,
Hello,
[7] Classes should be given descriptive names. Avoid using abbreviations where
possible. Each word in the class name should start with a capital letter,
without underscore delimiters (CampelCaps starting with a capital letter).
The class name should be prefixed with the name
Why not delay Zip until 5.3 and make an E_STRICT or E_NOTICE in 5.2 for the
Zip classname being a reserved word?
In fact if we could come up with a list of class names php wants to reserve
for itself then we could make them all raise notices so that people have
time to fix their code.
Regards
Hello,
On 7/20/06, Marco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not delay Zip until 5.3 and make an E_STRICT or E_NOTICE in 5.2 for the
Zip classname being a reserved word?
It makes little sense as it is not enable by default. A visible entry
in the NEWS and Changelog should be enough.
Note that it is
On 7/20/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If not then there probably
is no mainstream use for a Zip class and inclusion to core makes little
sense.
Hi,
I took this from wikipedia(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_%28file_format%29):
---
Microsoft has also included minimal
Hello Pierre,
actually i think we should no longer accept EXPERIMENTAL extensions in
core, though from my view at pecl/zip it should have reached a stable
state just right now, am i correct?
best regards
marcus
Thursday, July 20, 2006, 12:05:08 PM, you wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 04:27:19
Hello Pierre,
Thursday, July 20, 2006, 12:08:10 PM, you wrote:
Hello,
[7] Classes should be given descriptive names. Avoid using abbreviations
where
possible. Each word in the class name should start with a capital letter,
without underscore delimiters (CampelCaps starting with a
Hello Marco,
if we plan to include new classes and have E_STRICT (imo not notice) to
inform about the inclusion with the next minor version update would be a
good thing. To stay with the example at hand, inclusion then would go
like accepting Zip during 5.2 phase. Adding the E_STRICT at the
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
where
possible. Each word in the class name should start with a capital
letter,
without underscore delimiters (CampelCaps starting with a capital
letter).
The class name should be prefixed with the name of the 'parent set'
On 7/20/06, Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
where
possible. Each word in the class name should start with a capital
letter,
without underscore delimiters (CampelCaps starting with a capital
letter).
The class name should
Hello Pierre,
Thursday, July 20, 2006, 11:15:05 PM, you wrote:
On 7/20/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Pierre,
actually i think we should no longer accept EXPERIMENTAL extensions in
core, though from my view at pecl/zip it should have reached a stable
state just right
On 7/20/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Pierre,
actually i think we should no longer accept EXPERIMENTAL extensions in
core, though from my view at pecl/zip it should have reached a stable
state just right now, am i correct?
Ok, it is getting really ridiculuous. Where have
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Do you really ask me what Zip say?
You miss the point. If you do new Zip ... then I've no idea what the
object you get represents. However, doing new ZipArchive makes sense
as then you know the object represents a ZipArchive for example. Just
Zip doesn't
Pierre wrote:
On 7/20/06, Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
where
possible. Each word in the class name should start with a capital
letter,
without underscore delimiters (CampelCaps starting with a capital
letter).
The
On 7/20/06, Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Do you really ask me what Zip say?
You miss the point. If you do new Zip ... then I've no idea what the
object you get represents. However, doing new ZipArchive makes sense
as then you know the object
Hello,
On 7/20/06, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, in the US at least, Zip says Zip Code to me. Zip compression
would be my second guess so it isn't completely obvious.
It is a ZipCode, exactly.
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
Hello,
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:26:58 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Boerger) wrote:
I am but you obviously prefer to bring instable suff into core or what
now? Until now my idea of Zip was a stable idea so you could easily
have removed the tag file. The above said makes me thing that it is
Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 7/20/06, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, in the US at least, Zip says Zip Code to me. Zip compression
would be my second guess so it isn't completely obvious.
It is a ZipCode, exactly.
And by the same logic, a Zip archive is a ZipArchive. Do a web
if we plan to include new classes and have E_STRICT (imo not notice) to
inform about the inclusion with the next minor version update would be a
good thing. To stay with the example at hand, inclusion then would go
like accepting Zip during 5.2 phase. Adding the E_STRICT at the point the
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Do you really ask me what Zip say?
You miss the point. If you do new Zip ... then I've no idea what the
object you get represents. However, doing new ZipArchive makes sense
as then you know the object represents a ZipArchive for
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
And by the same logic, a Zip archive is a ZipArchive. Do a web search
for zip and you will find that half of the first set of results are
about zip archives and the other half are about zip codes. Why are you
assuming zip automatically means zip archive to people? It
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 7/20/06, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, in the US at least, Zip says Zip Code to me. Zip compression
would be my second guess so it isn't completely obvious.
It is a ZipCode, exactly.
And
Hello Pierre,
Friday, July 21, 2006, 12:10:02 AM, you wrote:
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 7/20/06, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, in the US at least, Zip says Zip Code to me. Zip compression
would be my second
Pierre,
Let's stop with hypocrisy. You wanted Derick to change 'Date' class
names, so he did it. Now you are arguing that the same rules shouldn't
apply to you? Enough.
-Andrei
On Jul 20, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre
On 7/21/06, Andrei Zmievski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre,
Let's stop with hypocrisy. You wanted Derick to change 'Date' class
names, so he did it. Now you are arguing that the same rules shouldn't
apply to you? Enough.
I never wanted him to change it. I wanted him to respect our decisions
Regardless of whether you wanted him to rename it or not release it
at all, you were concerned about the impact a class named 'Date'
would have on PEAR and other userland apps, were you not? How is this
different from pecl/zip?
-Andrei
On Jul 20, 2006, at 4:50 PM, Pierre wrote:
I never
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're class does only allow to compress, is that what you are trying
to explain?
Only than being a unix does make you clueless about zip. And please
stop your pointless comments as you perfectly know what provides the
class.
Now
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Andrei Zmievski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless of whether you wanted him to rename it or not release it
at all, you were concerned about the impact a class named 'Date'
would have on PEAR and other userland apps, were you not?
Actually no.
As Lukas and I pointed out
On 7/21/06, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're class does only allow to compress, is that what you are trying
to explain?
Only than being a unix does make you clueless about zip. And please
stop your
Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're class does only allow to compress, is that what you are trying
to explain?
Only than being a unix does make you clueless about zip. And please
stop your pointless comments as you perfectly know what provides
Totally agreed.
-Andrei
On Jul 20, 2006, at 5:46 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We did actually come to a consensus Pierre. And that is that PHP
owns the top-level namespace, but we should use decent descriptive
names and avoid any obvious clashes.
ext/date does date, time and timezone
Pierre wrote:
I reitere my proposal a last time, let fix this issue once and for all
and then I will consider to rename Zip if it is required (no, don't
answer now about that). But without this discussion, I will stay in
the kingdom of freedom, named PECL, et vive le Roi.
I'll hold you to the
Hello Pierre,
Friday, July 21, 2006, 2:56:00 AM, you wrote:
Hello,
On 7/21/06, Andrei Zmievski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless of whether you wanted him to rename it or not release it
at all, you were concerned about the impact a class named 'Date'
would have on PEAR and other userland
Hello,
Many people (incl. php devs) asked me if I can include zip in 5.2.0.
Ilia thought it was too late in the game and planed to do it in 5.2.1.
I like to have it in, as experimental.
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I never saw a
php zip implementation named Zip.
On 19.07.2006 18:34, Pierre wrote:
Hello,
Many people (incl. php devs) asked me if I can include zip in 5.2.0.
Ilia thought it was too late in the game and planed to do it in 5.2.1.
I like to have it in, as experimental.
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I never saw a
Many people (incl. php devs) asked me if I can include zip in 5.2.0.
Ilia thought it was too late in the game and planed to do it in 5.2.1.
I don't remember seeing a discussion on including Zip in core (perhaps I
just missed it, but a quick search didn't turn it up). I think Zip is
better
Hello,
On 7/19/06, Sean Coates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony mentioned another issue: the headache of maintaining PECL code
between PHP versions. This is a valid point (and he can elaborate if he
likes), but is a separate issue.
I'm very aware of the PECL issues and that's irrelevant in this
I would rather move more extensions from core to PECL, than from PECL to
core.
From my experiences the problem with this is many shared hosts wont install
non core modules, so the more modules moved from core to pecl the less
flexible php will be and the less use it will be.
I understand
From my experiences the problem with this is many shared hosts wont install
non core modules, so the more modules moved from core to pecl the less
flexible php will be and the less use it will be.
I understand the need to keep the core code maintained and as clean and
lean
as possible, but
Shared hosts are used to deploying PHP Proper and ignoring PECL, because
in the past, core was the only repository for everything.
As PECL grows in popularity (and as users demand more PECL
installations), we can hope this these hosts become more flexible.
I agree and I also hope this is the
+1
I wish to see Zip in PHP, it's a popular archive and plus used in .jar
implementation and .jar in its turn is used in other file formats, for
example OpenDocument one..
On 7/19/06, Pierre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Many people (incl. php devs) asked me if I can include zip in 5.2.0.
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 17:34 +0200, Pierre wrote:
+1/-1/0?
+1 from me, I still to this day get people pestering me about my article
on creating .zip files from pure PHP -- a real extension is clearly
useful.
John
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I never saw a
php zip implementation named Zip.
+1/-1/0?
-1 in core, PECL is the place for this.
-100 for class called Zip for the same reasons why we can not have
Date and TimeZone
Sean Coates wrote:
From my experiences the problem with this is many shared hosts wont install
non core modules, so the more modules moved from core to pecl the less
flexible php will be and the less use it will be.
I understand the need to keep the core code maintained and as clean and
lean
as
On 7/20/06, Jani Taskinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I never saw a
php zip implementation named Zip.
+1/-1/0?
-1 in core, PECL is the place for this.
-100 for class called Zip for the same
Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I never saw a
php zip implementation named Zip.
+1/-1/0?
-1 in core, PECL is the place for this.
-100 for class called Zip for the same reasons why we can not have
Pierre wrote:
Hello,
Many people (incl. php devs) asked me if I can include zip in 5.2.0.
Ilia thought it was too late in the game and planed to do it in 5.2.1.
I like to have it in, as experimental.
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I never saw a
php zip
Pierre wrote:
Please note that it intoduces a new class called Zip, but I never saw a
php zip implementation named Zip.
Uh, well this already was on thedailywtf...
See here, http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/80949.aspx
Rainer
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
95 matches
Mail list logo
