Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25938
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.182.187 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=T2s4BK7Uu4RffLtsQY58/NlizyMDh0QOHaOH5kbgxlzdcjTf6s4uuKAyU/lkRJRsOkNwVMajIlECT3fMbfKPTLlM7pzV7GYKrNu5xUzzjNR700Gz8rNBZr6ceebYZnAyJorxH4nWbatIWMu6Ost66gFJwoox9yOQyC9W0jjo/zw=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540610041032i1e208aao6fb8ae153f0366d0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:32:45 +0200
To: "Andrei Zmievski" <andrei@gravitonic.com>
Cc: "Sara Golemon" <pollita@php.net>, andi@zend.com, internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <c225aa78c56913e2b50828c0c301ea5f@gravitonic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <45233CD9.3070307@php.net>
	 <c225aa78c56913e2b50828c0c301ea5f@gravitonic.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Per-request UG(unicode)
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre)

Hello,

On 10/4/06, Andrei Zmievski <andrei@gravitonic.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
>
> > I did check it out.  Even made changes to try out a few variations on
> > the theme.  I also stand by that I don't like the number of variables
> > it throws into the mix.
> >
> > How about a compromise, we finish the code migration effort first,
> > then address per-request semantics either before beta, or in the 6.1
> > branch.
>
> I am afraid that won't work. There are several extensions which need to
> know the value of UG(unicode) in MINIT hook. This includes
> ob_gzhandler, I think. Chris Jones from Oracle is waiting on us to
> finalize this per-request issue before he can start on OCI8 migration.
> So we need to decide now.

There will have many other issues in php6 (related to unicode or not),
we simply cannot write in the stone what php6 will be or not at this
stage. This is a general comment, not only about this specific
problem.

As I just asked you on IRC, it would be nice to slow down a little
bit, not to slow down the php6 development, but to do not ask us to
take such important decisions so early in the game (it is early for me
or most of us, even if you started the unicode work a while back).
Once 5.2 is out, it will already be better, from a free time point of
view.

However, having finally tested the patch and tried to understand its
impact, I'm also not in favour of a per request unicode semantic (per
vhost only would be better, but it is not possible either).

--Pierre