Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29327
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 63.205.162.114 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <46406D8A.3010005@zend.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 05:31:06 -0700
Organization: Zend Technologies
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
CC:  internals@lists.php.net
References: <139872287.20070504170744@marcus-boerger.de> <1348470081.20070504221609@marcus-boerger.de> <463EB3FD.4020009@zend.com> <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>
In-Reply-To: <1376921277.20070508103616@marcus-boerger.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Starting 5.3
From: stas@zend.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

> either Greg or me as PHP customers. Nor was Phar designed to solve
> that particular issue alone. It was designed to deliver a stable and
> fast implementation of PHP_Archive that can be bundled into PHP as
> a C extension.

That's fine, the question is why exactly we need fast implementation of 
PHP_Archive that can be bundled into PHP as a C extension. I see only 
one reason - to run php code in production out of phar, and I don't 
think it's a good idea. Any other reasons?

> Guys what I don't understand is why some few people bicker around
> Phar so much, just because they have no private use for it? In the

Maybe if you actually tried to read the arguments instead of dismissing 
them as "bickering" you'd actually see why. I brought forward a number 
of reasons and neither of them was "it's of no private use for me". You 
can do better than this, really.

> past we have bundeled even stuff that has not been stable or in a
> mature state.

So we should do that more and more, right? More unstable stuff with 
potential for abuse is great for PHP, isn't it?

> And I have not seen a single reason against it. The only one close

Maybe you should actually read my emails?

> last time I checked PHP worked nearly perfectly. And last time I had
> to deal with JARs I did not have the slightest advantage of having
> it be a ZIP file. Just because in all those Java formats you have to

You didn't doesn't mean nobody did. You aren't the only programmer in 
the universe, you know, and people behind most of the packaging formats 
seem strangely united in *not* inventing new package formats but reusing 
old ones with existing tools. I wonder why would that be?

> the fly packing and Phar for deployment. And if some people want to
> execute phars directly, then why the hell make it hard for them or
> even disallow that?

Because it's a bad idea. And nobody disallowing that - we just refrain 
from promoting it.
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
stas@zend.com  http://www.zend.com/