Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:18519
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <16a201c5ac8c$271c4450$9cd96751@foxbox>
Reply-To: "Steph" <steph@zend.com>
To: "John Coggeshall" <john@coggeshall.org>
Cc: "Jani Taskinen" <sniper@iki.fi>,
	"Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, <internals@lists.php.net>,
	<rasmus@php.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508280348230.29820@arfg.argcubovn.sv><43110D8D.9080008@lerdorf.com><Pine.LNX.4.61.0508280410340.29820@arfg.argcubovn.sv><1125193332.27570.4.camel@localhost.localdomain><12fe01c5abdc$229e6d50$9cd96751@foxbox> <1125269439.27570.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:23:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1: Does it still require ext/xmlrpc	for	pear?
From: steph@zend.com ("Steph")

> On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 16:23 +0200, Steph wrote:
> > 'Replace'?  Code written for ext/xmlrpc won't work with ext/xmlrpci.
Will
> > ext/xmlrpc be available in PECL, given that it doesn't appear to have an
> > active maintainer?
>
> Sure it'll be in PECL, just like dio, crack, yaz, and the other half
> dozen or so extensions we've removed from PHP 5 ext/ and into PECL.

It's the 'given that it doesn't appear to have an active maintainer' part
that's important here.  It takes a little TLC to make a PECL package
available for download.

> > I'm well aware of ext/xmlrpc's limitations, haven't tried the new (but
> > necessary) pecl/xmlrpci yet, and have the tiny issue that a bunch of my
> > scripts will need a complete rewrite if the old extension is simply
taken
> > away from PHP 5 up.  I suspect I'm far from being alone in that - do we
have
> > figures for core extension usage, anyone?
>
> Well considering we've done it already with a number of extensions, I
> don't see a big issue. Note also that I'm not hugely concerned with
> *when* this happens (read: What version of PHP the change is made).
> Although there could be a bunch of compat functions to emulate the old
> xmlrpc behavior,I'm against it simply because there is nothing stopping
> someone from having both extensions loaded.

That's fair enough, so long as the older version is readily available.  It
becomes a problem if it isn't.  The word 'replace' kind of intimates that
the original extension is effectively a goner - and if you meant 'replace in
the core', I'm unaware of a precedent for that.

- Steph