Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:14246 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61275 invoked by uid 1010); 30 Dec 2004 19:52:29 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 60990 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2004 19:52:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Dec 2004 19:52:27 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.78.21.10 smtp11.intermedia.net Windows 2000 SP2+, XP SP1 (seldom 98 4.10.2222) Received: from ([64.78.21.10:43981] helo=smtp11.intermedia.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity HEAD (r3992M)) with SMTP id 9C/70-06005-BC554D14 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:23:56 -0500 Received: from ehost011-1.exch011.intermedia.net ([64.78.21.3]) by smtp11.intermedia.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:23:17 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:23:12 -0800 Message-ID: <41EE526EC2D3C74286415780D3BA9F8707348D39@ehost011-1.exch011.intermedia.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Why we don't like PHP / thread-index: AcTtBlrCs1dvDOqTQu6eOzOLvxA0FgAAnIVA To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" Cc: "Lester Caine" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2004 19:23:17.0452 (UTC) FILETIME=[03D4F8C0:01C4EEA5] Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Why we don't like PHP / From: hans@nyphp.com ("Hans Zaunere") > > That presents somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem. Production sites > > won't be compelled to make a move until PHP recommends it in some way, > > or if there is a killer feature that pulls people in, regardless of the > > perceived stability. >=20 > Right, and they shouldn't. If there is no compelling reason to switch, > why in the world should they? And why should we try to push them away > from a stable platform? Agreed - there is no reason at this time. =20 > > Then perhaps some striking new functionality would push PHP 5/Apache 2. > > While Apache 2 introduces new complexities, using some of the new > > features could be advantageous, and a step towards the next generation. > > For instance, allowing PHP to reach deeper into Apache, to a level > > similar to that of mod_perl, could provide significant new features and > > value. Getting PHP to control URL rewriting and logging, for example, > > could be new features that drive demands from end-developers, and at the > > same time generates interest and challenges for those developing PHP and > > Apache themselves. >=20 > That has nothing to do with Apache2 and has been available for Apache1 > for years. It just isn't a very popular feature. See the apache_hooks > code. I know apache_hooks but after discussion with George and others, I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending to clients, especially with EXPERIMENTAL notes and no mention on php.net. The potential functionality it could provide, however, would be very popular, on par with mod_rewrite. Whatever the particular feature is, my point is that the killer-solution or feature will drive going on to new things. Almost two years ago I ran PHP 4/Apache 2/threaded in production and it ran fine. Of course, the only extensions I used were MySQL and Oracle. However, I've since gone back to Apache 1, simply because there was no compelling reason to live on the edge. A chicken-and-egg problem, but perhaps it's time to think about incubating the egg. H