Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23996
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <000601c68b22$bbcc11a0$20f91a44@OHRLVN4523SG>
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>,
	"\"Dmitry Stogov\"" <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org>,
	"Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com>,
	<internals@lists.php.net>
References: <000001c68af5$50876930$6e02a8c0@thinkpad> <003f01c68b13$4f9ce680$88051fac@OHRLVN4523SG> <0fd201c68b16$2134af00$6602a8c0@foxbox> <006201c68b1a$b9338610$88051fac@OHRLVN4523SG> <100601c68b1b$0d9f9d60$6602a8c0@foxbox>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:39:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="Windows-1252";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PATCH] Automatic module globals management
From: pollita@php.net ("Sara Golemon")

>> For the modules which are part of the core distribution this is a 
>> non-issue as they're branched.  For PECL modules this is the same "how 
>> old of a PHP version am I (as the package maintainer) willing to 
>> support?". That package maintainer can: (A) Not use the new API, (B) Wrap 
>> up some #ifdef's, or (C) Use the new API exclusively and eschew pre-5.2.
>
> Right, and that's why I think it's problematic to have such a major change 
> in the API, because (A) and (C) are the likeliest outcomes - (B) is 
> virtually unmanageable. Take a look at what it takes for an extension to 
> adapt to this, and then imagine all of it #ifdef'd....
>
The important part of (A) is "not yet" (which I tried to express in my 
second paragraph).  It's the same reason why userspace package maintainers 
aren't using exceptions and other 5.x specific features en masse *yet*, and 
why goto won't be used in many scripts when 6.0 is first out -- okay, not 
the only reason why it won't be used :)

As for (C), I can't imagine an extension maintainer going that route unless 
they have other *more compelling* reasons to give up on pre-5.2 versions. 
There's just not enough of a win to merit alienating those earlier versions 
*yet*.  Noone's forcing module authors to break compatability with older 
versions, this is just giving them the choice to do so, and get a cleaner 
piece of source in the process.  It's also making it so that when those 
extension maintainers do reach that point, they don't have to alienate the 
(presumably larger) pre-6.0 audience, they only have to do so for the 
(smaller) pre-5.2 audience.

I'm sorry Steph, I know your position, but I just don't understand it.  This 
is a minor gain at no cost.  Minor enough that it's not worth it to me to 
fight with you over it, but no-cost enough to compel me to against my better 
judgement... :)

-Sara