Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:30000
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.134.190 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:references;
        b=WbCUJHzxDsHPdGW3lkv7TXeYzmbTprPi3sidCd/47nFwUy3GYd5usZ4Z8tXNPGCjgbLFG5yBIBQoGfUmS6wQ7GWnPWbHz3wmMmHgSfsjUhkMRfo4T17B2EGPsqyQ7PlrfEG7IjkpVx3Tl/B1Z8PNH4BqPSs+4Q/H8PStU+AV93A=
Message-ID: <30bd80240705310907k15015982wed996d9bb183e8c7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:07:32 -0400
To: jani.taskinen@iki.fi
Cc: "Antony Dovgal" <antony@zend.com>, "PHP Internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <465E9910.20301@sci.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_22042_32133728.1180627652618"
References: <465E00E2.4010905@zend.com> <465E08D9.4020101@sci.fi>
	 <465E7A28.3010100@zend.com> <465E8F99.70407@sci.fi>
	 <465E917A.5030202@zend.com> <465E94A5.4090509@pooteeweet.org>
	 <465E979A.1000904@zend.com> <465E9910.20301@sci.fi>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5 or 6?
From: nicobn@gmail.com ("=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicolas_B=E9rard-Nault?=")

------=_Part_22042_32133728.1180627652618
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

If, for exemple, you want to run PHP4 and PHP5 on two different instances o=
f
Apache using the same Apache binary (but two different httpd.conf), it's
useful to have them named libphp4.so and libphp5.so because `make install'
automatically throws the library where apxs tells it to.

If the major version number is dropped, not only will it be inconsistent
with the previous names, it will also mix things up.

My 2 cents.

On 5/31/07, Jani Taskinen <jani.taskinen@sci.fi> wrote:
>
> "worked for years" is just why I said "having a totally new major
> version"..meaning this is the time to fix the bad practises.
> For filenames this is no problem at all, you can always rename files
> yourself if you _really_ need to have different files around.
>
> And if you think that this breaks something..well, it doesn't.
> The old libphp4.so, and libphp5.so aren't changing with this, are they? :=
D
>
> --Jani
>
> Antony Dovgal kirjoitti:
> > On 31.05.2007 13:25, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> >> Antony Dovgal wrote:
> >>> On 31.05.2007 13:04, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> >>>> Antony Dovgal kirjoitti:
> >>>>> On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> >>>>>> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why
> >>>>>> not just remove them altogether..?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> You chose just the right example! Now, can you tell why it is
> >>>> necessary?
> >>>> And remember, everything is possible..there is no impossible here,
> >>>> we're
> >>>> having a totally new major version and everything.
> >>>
> >>> Well, you might want to have both libphp5.so and libphp6.so
> >>> installed, but only one of them enabled.
> >>
> >> Why should you be able to do this for two different major versions,
> >> but not for arbitrary minor versions or even configurations?
> >
> > Because this is how it works for years?
> >
> > I do agree that having version number in file names is bad idea, but we
> > need to think it over very good, since I don't like changing a behaviou=
r
> > which existed for ages, even if it looks stupid.
> >
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


--=20
Nicolas B=E9rard-Nault (nicobn@gmail.com)
=C9tudiant D.E.C. Sciences, Lettres & Arts
C=E9gep de Sherbrooke

Page personnelle: http://nicobn.googlepages.com

------=_Part_22042_32133728.1180627652618--