Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:2827
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Reply-To: zeev@zend.com
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030626155109.059eb1e0@localhost>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:53:09 +0300
To: "Rob Richards" <rrichards@ctindustries.net>
Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <075001c33bde$03435a30$06dea8c0@cyberware.local>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030626131542.05a31fd8@localhost>
 <200306261107.h5QB77P29080@www.digarc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] xml and libxml versions
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

FWIW, that's one of the key reasons I think we should default to use the 
bundled libxml, and only use the system library if the user explicitly 
requested that.  I think we're going to bundle libxml in beta1 to see how 
well this concept works.

Zeev

At 15:25 26/06/2003, Rob Richards wrote:
>Will there be an "official" supported version of libxml now that there are
>many xml extensions using it?
>
>One issue that came up with the old domxml extension was that occasionally
>new versions of libxml would "fix" things which ended up changing behavior
>of the extension. With more extensions it could be more difficult to
>determine exactly what is a bug and what is due to code changes in libxml,
>as well as that some extensions may be affected by the changes and some may
>not.
>
>Under win32 for instance, in order to use a stock libxml2.dll, it must be
>version 2.5.x (not sure the exact start version) otherwise the symbols
>simplexml need are unavailable and would need libxml compiled in statically.
>
>Having at least one version defined as compatible would make it much easier
>for testing and debugging across all the extensions while other libxml
>versions could be run at your own risk.
>
>Rob
>
>
>
>--
>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php