Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37574 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 86859 invoked from network); 10 May 2008 17:44:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 May 2008 17:44:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=hsantos@isdg.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=hsantos@isdg.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain isdg.net designates 208.247.131.9 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: hsantos@isdg.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 208.247.131.9 ntbbs.winserver.com Windows NT 4.0 (older) Received: from [208.247.131.9] ([208.247.131.9:2024] helo=winserver.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C4/24-56346-2FED5284 for ; Sat, 10 May 2008 13:44:19 -0400 Received: from mail.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v6.3.452.5) for internals@lists.php.net; Sat, 10 May 2008 13:43:00 -0400 Received: from mail.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v6.3.452.5) with ESMTP id 882724875; Sat, 10 May 2008 13:42:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4825DEB7.2070909@isdg.net> Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 13:43:19 -0400 Organization: Santronics Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <4824219D.3070806@isdg.net> <4824EEAA.3080901@isdg.net> <1210423265.30073.8.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1210423265.30073.8.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Comment: Missing recipient address appended by wcSMTP router. To: internals@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Extension_Dir: Proposal to offer multi-directory DLL loading From: hsantos@isdg.net (Hector Santos) Lars Strojny wrote: > Hi Hector, > >> Do you see a technical reason why this is not a good idea? Would it be >> transparent enough that it would not cause issues with current >> extensions? > > I would really love to see this. A use case I have in mind is extension > development. If one has a continuous integration solution, the in-house > developed module can be easily auto-deployed and live with system-wide > default extensions. > > cu, Lars Great! Got two positives on this, so I'll work on this. Now, if I can only figure out the Windows Build. What a mess!! :-) -- Hector Santos