Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:12351
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040825180250.03498be0@127.0.0.1>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:06:32 -0700
To: "Naik, Roshan" <roshan.naik@hp.com>,<internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <C043E4034185BB40B01C76980AC639C066F1D0@cacexc04.americas.c
 pqcorp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Unfulfilled promises... forever experimental
  extensions... all over again
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)
References: <C043E4034185BB40B01C76980AC639C066F1D0@cacexc04.americas.cpqcorp.net>

Thanks for this quite useless and unproductive email.
I suggest to inform yourself slightly better on the tons of improvements 
the PHP development team have made and where we are today vs. 4 years ago.
I suggest next time, if you want to be productive, you can contact us with 
a concrete problem and proposed solution.

Andi

At 05:32 PM 8/25/2004 -0700, Naik, Roshan wrote:

>Every once in a while somebody has to speak out about the state
>of the union and bear the brunt of some anger... with a hope
>that things will change for the better.
>
>2 years back I started out asking a question being
>concerned by the frustration caused to many users (and vendors
>alike). Frustration due to many of the useful extensions forever
>being in experimental mode for the longest time. I asked ...
>
>   " And exactly how long is it expected to continue to stay  EXPERIMENTAL ?"
>
>The response was a predictable one, expressing indifference...
>
>   "Between 15 days and 15 months"
>
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=103159872214635&w=2
>
>
>So I decided to analyze CVS repository and posted the conclusions...
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=103161600832402&w=2
>
>It included an analysis of how long each of the extensions had been
>in that mode.
>
>To point out a few:
>     sockets, openssl, crack, domxml
>
>  *had been* in that mode for 2 years ( i.e.. more than 15months).
>And today they are all still experimental. So that's their
>4th (experimental) birthday.
>
>
>Now just for the kicks lets take the case of Sockets extension and analyze its
>history.
>
>There was a msg on 21st feb 2002 on this mailing list.
>Here we see some kind of encouraging remarks about achieving
>stabilization by 4.2.X...
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=101424999803151&w=2
>
><quote>
>    Timeline & Stabilization
>    =========================
>
>    I would like to fix all of this by 4.2.X. I propose that we then mark
>    the extension as stable, and freeze the API.
></quote>
>
>
>on Sept 6 2002, a frustrated user asked..
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=103134854829058&w=2
>
><quote>
>    Do the maintainers of the PHP sockets extension ever intend to get 
> their act
>    together and cement the API, or are people who need this functionality 
> going
>    to be forced to rewrite their code every time there's a new 
> point-release of
>   PHP?
></quote>
>
>
>and the response was...
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=103135145531682&w=2
>
><quote>
>   Which part of "EXPERIMENTAL" in the docs at [snipped url] don't
>   you understand?
>
>   If you're so desparate to have things cemented, write a patch,
>   post it here and we'll commit it.
>   If you don't have the skills, you might consider offering those that
>   do some positive incentive to do it for you.
></quote>
>
>Basically...do it yourself or buzz-off attitude. And this is not the only
>occurrence of such backlash.
>
>After some folks stepped up the pressure, very encouraging comment on
>sept 12  2002 that it will indeed make into production soon....
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=103179363830424&w=2
>
><quote>
>    Most of the other work needed to mark the extension stable has been
>    done, all that remains is that I have some small win32 work left to do.
></quote>
>
>sockets, openssl, domxml are very useful extensions. Will these (and all 
>the others)
>ever get out of experimental ? doesn't look like. How about the shiny
>new SimpleXML or sql-lite?  If history is in any indicator...then I guess 
>they will
>suffer the same fate. And likely that their users will also be slapped in 
>the face.
>domxml has already had a super long experimental career.
>And now all this new stuff has gone into it. So I guess that makes it
>even less likely to make it out of experimental. Please don't think
>I am picking out these due to some vengeance for the people behind it.
>I am giving examples to see where we have been, where we are
>and are we really going anywhere.
>
>If these are experimental then why include them in the propaganda ?
>Just to shoo-off the people for whom all this was created in the
>1st place ?
>
>Like the bank telling you that they will give you a "free" checking account.
>Then when you complain your money isnt totalling up to ur deposits,
>they shoot back at you saying ... "checking accounts are experimental
>and it was mentioned in the brochure"
>
>
>Today I see PHP5 with a set of promises that are congruent with the
>earlier PHP4 release.
>
> >From the php4 release I can recall some of the propaganda...
>
>  - redesigned scripting engine (much faster, much better, much ...)
>  - Under UNIX features a much smarter and generalized build process 
> (smarter, nicer )
>  - enhanced object oriented programming - (now we've got it right!)
>  - new extensions with cool new features
>     +  Java support (still experimental)
>     +  XSL          (still experimental)
>     +  SOAP         (still experimental)
>     + ...
>
>The same mantra being repeated is a sign that we didn't get it right
>the last time we chanted that mantra....and by inductive inference this
>effort is also questionable.
>
>But the first few are all right to promote as they actually made it into
>the product, got used and are properly supported. But blowing the horn
>about new functionality included in experimental extensions should be
>deplorable and considered dishonest practice.
>
>Hopefully belts will be tightened up around the extensions and the
>responsibility taken up by their authors.
>
>-- Roshan
>
>--
>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php