Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29310
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.162.231 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=ssLO40Vj1gfpTSBziLrDxR7LiLzigF1DwmC9WkqBP5wMYRUzmUrRl9zkQ+tf2s9qQUk08w6+TzUFU3lQxFEdZ7uIsmvf86Q3fz3rsyR0Y94UjmQiNQRqbwfHvDGshRVmMNRLVG3mH20qbGlsJcXWrfK3ind0agFukavkBmr4dig=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540705080158v606af547oa8b661e0d68a7835@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 10:58:19 +0200
To: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <1376921277.20070508103616@marcus-boerger.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <139872287.20070504170744@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <1062653277.20070507092725@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <463ED871.8080606@zend.com> <463F1B3A.3070703@pooteeweet.org>
	 <463F74EA.7030704@zend.com>
	 <1377895609.20070507211530@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <463F8909.6000709@zend.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.0.98.0705080822260.27587@kossu.ez.no>
	 <fe05d1540705080113u2f675932i16de5ac6f997406f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1376921277.20070508103616@marcus-boerger.de>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Starting 5.3
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre)

On 5/8/07, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:

> Now adding Pecl/Zip was a clever idea as it allows an easy way to
> compress stuff on the fly for sites that offer downloads. However
> this is a) far far away from a mainstream problem

And to read zip files (upload, ftp, remote data). I think each of us
has had to deal with zip data (read or write) more than once. It is a
mainstream need. Or if you mean that phar is not a mainstream problem
then I agree. But I don't really see the point to compare both, they
are too completely different extension (general purpose and
developer/packager extension).

I'm in general in favour of phar but I don't think we should start 5.3
for it. I don't think either that it is stable enough to be bundled. I
doubt it is possible to have a stable package in only three public
releases (even the first public release was already marked stable).

However once this package got a wider audience and users base, I don't
have real objections to do not bundle it even if I still think that
phar is a packager tool and have little to do with the mainstream
needs.

--Pierre