Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35106 php.pdo:95
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 64.97.136.139 cause and error)
Message-ID: <00ce01c865c2$22f23aa0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
Reply-To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
To: <pdo@lists.php.net>
Cc: "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:36:23 -0000
Organization: Zend Technologies
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Fw: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2
From: steph@zend.com ("Steph Fox")

> If we're going the PECL refurbishment route, can we have some way of 
> marking non-standard (as in CLA'd or differently-licensed) extensions to 
> make contributors' lives easier and future discussions of this nature 
> moot? Possibly even a separate CVS module that hooks into the PECL 
> infrastructure?

e.g. PECLA ? :)

This seemed a bad idea to me last night, but actually it could work out well 
(assuming PECL itself is sorted out pronto). From the end user perspective 
there'd be no distinction between PECL and PECLA extensions - both would 
have pecl.php.net homepages and releases etc - but from the dev perspective 
there's this whole marked area that you know you're going to need to sign 
something if you want to contribute to it, and it would require a separate 
checkout.

It also has the advantage that we don't need to wait for PECL to be fixed 
before opening up the repository module, although obviously how well it 
works would be down to how well PECL resolves its problems.

Thoughts, anyone?

- Steph