At 07:55 20/08/2002, Brad LaFountain wrote:
You as a Zend owner who's business could be very propitable for Zend2
success
or you as a php developer
Brad,
This is CLEARLY as PHP developers. We happen to have quite a bit of
experience in getting the userbase to convert from one version to
-Original Message-
From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PATCH: debug_backtrace() function for 4.3-dev/ZE1
At 12:30 PM 8/19/2002 +0200, you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I still think it shouldn't go in. This is the only feature in Engine 2
which might make non-OOP people convert. Once this isn't in Engine 2 we
don't have a carrot for them.
I guess you want PHP 5 only to have ZE2 as the only major change?
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I still think it shouldn't go in. This is the only feature in Engine 2
which might make non-OOP people convert. Once this isn't in Engine 2 we
don't have a carrot for them.
[..]
I'm +1 for getting this backtrace thing in PHP asap. It's more
--- Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:55 20/08/2002, Brad LaFountain wrote:
You as a Zend owner who's business could be very propitable for Zend2
success
or you as a php developer
Brad,
This is CLEARLY as PHP developers. We happen to have quite a bit of
experience in
At 17:21 20/08/2002, Brad LaFountain wrote:
Ok this experience you are talking about is converting php3 = php4 correct?
Both PHP/FI 2 = PHP 3 and PHP 3 = PHP 4
Well how many people are were using php3 at that time? Siginifntly less? The
conversion from php3 to php4 offered a more stable
First of all I wanna just say that I'm just stating my opnion. You seem to be
getting angry. Im not trying to say your wrong and I'm right. Please don't take
it like that.
--- Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 17:21 20/08/2002, Brad LaFountain wrote:
Ok this experience you are
[..]
Besides whos to say that
adding debug_backtrace now to 4.3 won't steer more people to php
instead of other envrionments.
I'm willing to be the first person to say this if no one beats me to
it... Such a featurelet steering people to choose one
technology/platform over the other?
At 18:45 20/08/2002, Brad LaFountain wrote:
First of all I wanna just say that I'm just stating my opnion. You seem to be
getting angry. Im not trying to say your wrong and I'm right. Please don't
take
it like that.
I'm not angry at all :)
Obvisouly we all have our own opnion I wanted to
Obvisouly we all have our own opnion I wanted to state mine not get
in a big
argument about this. I do see your point, as a zend2 advocate, and im
sure you see mine too, as a php user who wants debug_backtrace. So what
to do, do you just call the shots or do we have an offical vote?
I've
I still think it shouldn't go in. This is the only feature in Engine 2
which might make non-OOP people convert. Once this isn't in Engine 2 we
don't have a carrot for them. Why can't you respect this way of
thinking? Especially as I wrote the code? You're basically saying screw
them because
At 19:35 20/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We should not be talking about carrots here, and Thies is not saying
screw you to you. He wants to help PHP users today.
That almost sounds like a Microsoft tagline :) Come on, you know what he
meant. If Andi didn't implement this efficient approach
We have a feature that doesn't destabilize anything or slow anything down
as far as I can tell, and would be very useful to a whole bunch of users
today. If that single point is not more important than anything else, then
we are getting completely offtrack here.
I disagree. Exactly the
At 20:04 20/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
If you could explain to me why holding back a useful feature that could
help a lot of users today is somehow better for these users, then you
might be able to convince me. Is it because by holding it back now we can
force a portion of users who are
--- Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 19:35 20/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We should not be talking about carrots here, and Thies is not saying
screw you to you. He wants to help PHP users today.
That almost sounds like a Microsoft tagline :) Come on, you know what he
meant.
-Original Message-
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:58 PM
To: Rasmus Lerdorf
Cc: Andi Gutmans; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PATCH: debug_backtrace() function for 4.3-dev/ZE1
with it, but as I said
At 09:55 PM 8/19/2002 -0700, Brad LaFountain wrote:
I still think it shouldn't go in. This is the only feature in Engine 2
which might make non-OOP people convert. Once this isn't in Engine 2 we
don't have a carrot for them.
You as a Zend owner who's business could be very propitable
By the way, the only personal gain I have in getting ZE2 out of there is
that it's my code and that PHP will do much better. I think that PHP is
going to loose out big time if things don't start gaining some momentum.
Backporting is definitely a momentum breaker *especially* as everyone
It took us a long time to get php-dev moving on the new version
because most of them were still using PHP 3 for their production sites.
The fact that you guys are so strongly in favor of putting this cool
feature into ZE1 proves that not putting it in could give ZE2 a big
boost of
At 11:20 AM 8/20/2002 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
By the way, the only personal gain I have in getting ZE2 out of there is
that it's my code and that PHP will do much better. I think that PHP is
going to loose out big time if things don't start gaining some momentum.
Backporting is
On 08/20/02, Shane Caraveo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I would trash 4.3, and focus on the next major version
including ze2. Do it now, get it over with. Having this non-descript
4.3 between now and ze2 is somewhat distracting. There can be minor
point releases to backport bug
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Dan Hardiker wrote:
Could we not just release a patch to the people that want it (well, need
it!), and leave the official implementation until PHP5? That way the
carrot remains, but nothing is held back from the people who desperatly
want it.
Having 'official' patches
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:48:03PM +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 07:50 PM 8/18/2002 +0200, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:29:47AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
more than a year away from realistically
At 11:36 19/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
my apache 2.0 thing got misinterpreted a bit - let me
clearify: apache2.0 is ready, it works and it's even better
than 1.3 (the httpd itself). but ppls don't upgrade all
threir servers immediatly. as rasmus mentioned, the same
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:45:30AM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
How often do you call a function that gives you your current backtrace in
C? In my many years of C experience, I would have to say that the accurate
answer is -0- times. You really should compare apples with apples...
you
At 13:30 19/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:45:30AM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
How often do you call a function that gives you your current backtrace in
C? In my many years of C experience, I would have to say that the
accurate
answer is -0- times. You
I said before - I prefer not having any changes in ZE1, for both stability
reasons and also as a motivation to get ZE2 out the door more quickly.
Zeev
At 17:21 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
if noone objects i'm going to commit this to -HEAD (and we
can start discussing it
I also think we should make sure enough people have motivation to move to
ZE2. If not it'll be hard to push it out and we all know that it's a very
important step for PHP. As it is, there is still not enough momentum behind it.
Andi
At 05:38 PM 8/18/2002 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I said
there is one tiny change that might destabelize the ZE1 - i
asked if you could take a look and see if you agree with
me that this change is actually *not* harmful.
i don't really see your point that having debug_backtrace
only available in ZE2 will bring more momentum to the
I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
the specifics of the patch that can make me change my personal mind about it...
I understand you disagree with me about the momentum issue, so let's agree
to disagree.
Zeev
At 20:12 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:19:52PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
the specifics of the patch that can make me change my personal mind about
it...
I understand you disagree with me about the momentum issue, so let's agree
I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
people. It takes a while for people to upgrade, and many will skip the .0
release. If a few tweaks to ZE1 can eliminate peoples' motivation to move
to ZE2,
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:19:52PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
the specifics of the patch that can make me change my personal mind about
it...
I understand you
At 20:29 18/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
people.
No, it's not. It's around 6 months away from being
production-quality. That's exactly the
At 20:40 18/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not happy with that indeed. ZE1 is still the current version, and I
wouldn't see any reason to not extend it (or even backport things from
ZE2 as this patch is largely about).
Why not backport all the changes then?
I'm -1 on introducing any new
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:29:47AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
people. It takes a while for people to upgrade, and many will skip the .0
release. If a
At 20:24 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:19:52PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
the specifics of the patch that can make me change my personal mind about
it...
I understand you disagree
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:49:30PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 20:40 18/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not happy with that indeed. ZE1 is still the current version, and I
wouldn't see any reason to not extend it (or even backport things from
ZE2 as this patch is largely about).
At 20:29 18/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
people.
No, it's not. It's around 6 months away from being
production-quality. That's exactly the
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:50:04PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 20:24 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:19:52PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
the specifics of the patch that can make me
At 21:00 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
this is more than a little frustrating for me and i'm sure
not too many ppls will be happy about your desupport notice
for ZE1.
It has nothing to do with desupport. I fixed ZE1 issues, *COMPLEX* ones,
that cost me days of low level
At 20:56 18/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
At 20:29 18/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
people.
No, it's not. It's around 6 months away from being
Zeev makes a very very good point here..
What is the point of backporting everything into 4.3, There is no real
point. PHP needs to move forward with new and improved.. Not spending
its time going no where, and trying to improve on going no where.
With ZE2 being the current goal the only thing
At 21:00 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
so - cool, you (za) stopped working on it. does that mean
it's now written in stone and nobody is allowed to touch it?
Feature-wise, I hope so. There's so much I can do to actually make it so,
though.
We have a pretty clear roadmap for
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
we _want_ to work together, right? atleast i want that. i
have pulled my hair many times for having a real-backtrace on
a production-site _without_ having to load an extension that
makes the whole site ~10% slower (sorry, derick)
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
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:18:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
we _want_ to work together, right? atleast i want that. i
have pulled my hair many times for having a real-backtrace on
a production-site _without_ having to load
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:06:47PM -0500, Richard Thomas wrote:
Zeev makes a very very good point here..
What is the point of backporting everything into 4.3, There is no real
point. PHP needs to move forward with new and improved.. Not spending
its time going no where, and trying to
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
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 09:26:45PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
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
look at the opcodes for:
a(b(c()));
function a() {}
function b() {}
function c() {}
and tell me which function is called from which scope. unless
you know something i dont youll see
a()
b()
c()
which is wrong as the correct call-order is
Here my opinion, in case it is worth anything:
Backport debug_backtrace(): +1
Backport all ZE2 changes: -1
Get more momentum behind ZE2: +1
On 08/18/02, Thies C. Arntzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zeev, this discussion should be pure technical, any political
or personal things
At 21:58 18/08/2002, Wez Furlong wrote:
Generally speaking, and please don't take offense, I think that one
of the problems with ZE2 is that development is slow. I understand
that there are several very good reasons for that, but the real
problem is that there aren't enough people with enough
At 07:50 PM 8/18/2002 +0200, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:29:47AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
people. It takes a while for
One another suggestion a change in ZE1 that would ease transition to ZE2.
making
$object-__clone() work on ZE1 (eg. parse equivalant to $object) ,
(without having to add it to all classes that are likely to need it)..
would at least enable code written for ZE1 work with ZE2.. and visa
55 matches
Mail list logo
