Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110122 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 2565 invoked from network); 11 May 2020 10:40:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 11 May 2020 10:40:39 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9ED71804C2 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 02:17:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lf1-f47.google.com (mail-lf1-f47.google.com [209.85.167.47]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 02:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f47.google.com with SMTP id b26so6868652lfa.5 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 02:17:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NLE6cgtyXdrB9ErK5zNcKMBcFZhtTNtycDtmFO3K0ps=; b=q/HwTE26dOhDRKcYUt6ubBGF6CC1Uasb+qsnlPorRO5MLsQGsggKbP9rv6CvQ5SlOJ YxWR83SU/B6iwVXaAt8Y2z+KN0Rc1J7hdDrjO0OmdKWSLahaiOWjot3rDJCstiJ2ugei mdynjPePdlozPOIQ1d1xRnpOCE8rAibSx53A+Giq4N+fUB+g8+jDwK1Pthf3dZwbFgHY +hPZkx1pstqCfiFhv20jcvZ6G7CaDI3wDuO9s4I6rq2PulVUZBt70YC2p6ETjrI/kipS xmasYDlJ1a700cnkeDfBwUYXhEw2hH7logXTY/ELk2Ly4HoQDQxb6JEKXTwQe2Wqd/Qd oxxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NLE6cgtyXdrB9ErK5zNcKMBcFZhtTNtycDtmFO3K0ps=; b=c6NIPoF2nU6pCoKoNr3mfFo5tPYnY3+gTD8Z8fA+OjBzI60Q9KFkjNeDE+j4B5XoV0 yKg4lisP9JtPueSx97JBVnYUU3LgZf6hjeI/S/ZA7K4wBilfTNDdtdpR39irIAXnoAvk PFIQtolUFBZ/w9/ikoECp4i/Zsur38GkplkseCg0Bqn/kWu+TNnpzlXCRj3vRgyum19g u4gVzEPdfiT6hYwp4KJ5ITlVNbB8ZjTPCrSqEXlMBGYzN72tICnNweYNpr4pm14q+UkC RCM9IFUH73watlg6Lr/mwVgy7C1qPwElEac509Uon+JAESfJwBHfsE3cDjZZNEg0QeFm 11qA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530G7muY7c+ILKWpCzVUH3fT4wjwtHTeGMZjrl8gZd566RfEHO+d Z8nrWF3t8ZBesps6PPFmZEPLjjIr/HJetkPWlbo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRjOnoW6CKb/7zlMRqvJgCI5jfjMA3a4FS+353DTmp5IpAS+orhUWAt8rjDhZ846d5x+BC6RdjeefZqA6eYeI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:44e:: with SMTP id y14mr10291223lfk.190.1589188619932; Mon, 11 May 2020 02:16:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <882bb1d5-fd8d-f3ad-85cf-58fa6feec41d@gmx.de> <81cc5e5f-e084-fedd-f178-dc675c324ded@telia.com> In-Reply-To: <81cc5e5f-e084-fedd-f178-dc675c324ded@telia.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 11:16:43 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Larsson?= Cc: "Christoph M. Becker" , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002c20d205a55bcff5" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Unbundle ext/xmlrpc From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --0000000000002c20d205a55bcff5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:00 AM Bj=C3=B6rn Larsson wrote: > Den 2020-05-11 kl. 08:57, skrev Christoph M. Becker: > > > On 26.04.2020 at 15:28, Christoph M. Becker wrote: > > > >> I propose to unbundle ext/xmlrpc, and written a respective RFC: > >> > >> > > Thanks for the feedback so far. Unless there are further issues > > regarding the RFC to be discussed, I'll open voting tomorrow. > > > > Thanks, > > Christoph > > For sure it makes sense to unbundle it! However, I recall the discussion > that was held around unbundling of ext/wddx that was about PECL > becoming a graveyard for unmaintained extensions. Is any of that > also applicable here, e.g. secondary voting option? > > - https://externals.io/message/103164#103209 > To be clear, the secondary voting option you're suggesting is whether to deprecate the extension in PECL? I believe the RFC already addresses the question, and I agree with the reasoning where. Unlike the move of wddx to PECL, which was partially made because we had specific security concerns with the extension, our primary concern here is maintenance. There does not seem to be a strong need to signal that people should stop using it ASAP. The extension (and more importantly, the underlying library) has been unmaintained for many years already and the move to PECL will not change things materially in that regard. Nikita --0000000000002c20d205a55bcff5--