Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36654 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59616 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2008 15:52:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Mar 2008 15:52:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lars@strojny.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lars@strojny.net; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain strojny.net designates 85.10.204.248 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lars@strojny.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.10.204.248 milch.schokokeks.org Received: from [85.10.204.248] ([85.10.204.248:45914] helo=milch.schokokeks.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 62/1B-25926-8441DE74 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:52:42 -0500 Received: from [10.22.2.150] (colt-d53d2146.colt.mediaventures.de [::ffff:213.61.33.70]) (AUTH: PLAIN lars@schokokeks.org, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,CAMELLIA256-SHA) by milch.schokokeks.org with esmtp; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:52:36 +0100 id 0000000000020007.0000000047ED1444.00001162 To: internals Mailing List Cc: Benjamin Schulz , Greg Beaver , Elizabeth M Smith , Marcus Boerger In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:52:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1206719555.6331.39.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=_milch.schokokeks.org-4450-1206719556-0001-2" X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] phar API From: lars@strojny.net (Lars Strojny) --=_milch.schokokeks.org-4450-1206719556-0001-2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everybody, After having a great discussion with Marcus about the Phar API, I've tried to sum up the proposed changes (of course with a strong focus on my opinion about what should be changed :-)). The RFC is not yet finished and I would like you to comment it beforehand. I've tried to include as much as possible as discussed/proposed here. Also I would like to help implementing it (up to the level where my skills end), so this is not (only) about letting others work. A few concrete questions: Marcus, et al, could you please verify that my technical assumptions are correct? Elizabeth, et al, the concrete semantic of Phar::isWritable() is what? Is it just is_writable('test.phar') or is it Phar::canWrite() && is_writable('test.phar')? Benjamin, could you live with the proposed change of the ArrayAccess usage? The RFC: =EF=BB=BFhttp://wiki.php.net/rfc/streamline-phar-api cu, Lars --=_milch.schokokeks.org-4450-1206719556-0001-2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJH7RRDAAoJECQPF+sCY6wH/fgQAIY6+6qXaDbrzZLkh3uXRuOg up3K/NSJLzKPXxAhjnRDiJZIlDmqhiaVqsVx4y5DeL3h+c+S0Ohzx5FTWuxDUxgW pRKAZtlJEd7xHr4mcU2LA0CqjoDsNXtm3uzu665CyN2+Mqf6kxDFJAB2Aec9tPtF P6Nvkhh6xyFKZXCU+wwnXUjfHRrZTH30ZiLsrKUmStBcINysSBHLTNm0bwsL526w HthOe8vNoyEtkm+HncpSBtHeLtJv8C6DKBh6eHOEnnB8TXEQo/Vri4Z3Nb+jiJf3 V7RjGwZSxiSUpvW2GEoUHjoqmmXOc29UG/W2TUZ/1pt1k6S/s9KY8XAYQ8RO+o8b RFQe7UNxd8Ix8qcSs7K5j+X+p/uWbyp4MTDwn0G+q61CCWP8jHSRWzFLB0XEz+5U yzXIXA4VzrcUU4kZ16ray2gPHprgGXvPH/a2ILH4K6S51TGGO5MzwbJ4arsOVZjG 70W08+ncSeqb1XgeGwWBscMn/2IJ2k/lCcVdwt7Vi+eQrdkdPRnmhevpB71NKZYr Txu34qtN750Z6L0yC1haxel78LREN76fCWZM5jqG5yetcSIhfvUz60PG8P9L3+lv JeuTW2f2mMMwhHRigtCotckYZ5iMjoSmN+lNrcEpPcmcO+taI7yL1vcSP8uWu9OV xCzBnatK8JAE6dp+CRKq =uTrW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_milch.schokokeks.org-4450-1206719556-0001-2--