Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:18521
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:58:33 -0400
In-reply-to: <16a201c5ac8c$271c4450$9cd96751@foxbox>
To: Steph <steph@zend.com>
Cc: Jani Taskinen <sniper@iki.fi>, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>,
	internals@lists.php.net, rasmus@php.net
Message-ID: <1125316713.11271.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
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>
	<16a201c5ac8c$271c4450$9cd96751@foxbox>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1: Does it still require	ext/xmlrpc	for	pear?
From: john@coggeshall.org (John Coggeshall)

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 13:23 +0200, Steph wrote:
> 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'll roll the PECL package myself.

> > > 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.

Yes.

Cheers,

John