Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38537
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain phparch.com from 64.99.136.141 cause and error)
Message-ID: <008601c8d524$41184e30$4401a8c0@foxbox>
Reply-To: "Steph Fox" <steph@phparch.com>
To: "Pierre Joye" <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: "Greg Beaver" <greg@chiaraquartet.net>,
	"Marcus Boerger" <mail@marcus-boerger.de>,
	"internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <028a01c8d4a7$18dd4380$4401a8c0@foxbox> <fe05d1540806221341o6ebd3c21v2506d92903778bbe@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:28:25 +0100
Organization: php|architect
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] OpenSSL and Phar
From: steph@phparch.com ("Steph Fox")


Hi Pierre,

OK, I got back to the rest of your email now (caffeine always helps, eh).

> I'm not sure it makes sense to have the ssl optional features enabled
> but not ext/openssl. Or to say it better, I don't see the gain. What
> is the gain besides being able to say: "heh you can use the ssl
> features without having ext/openssl but you need the libs anyway"?

You're missing that Windows users don't tend to roll their own PHP. They 
tend to pick and choose their extensions.

At present, if someone were to load php_openssl.dll from PECL alongside 
built-in Phar in 5.3 they'd probably wonder why it wasn't working as 
advertised. If the dependency were made explicit in Phar, the only thing 
ext/openssl would be needed for is explicit openssl calls - which is far 
easier to understand.

FWIW, I think having Phar built-in is actually a disadvantage when it comes 
to this kind of thing. ext/openssl isn't enabled by default and is only 
available as shared to the vast majority of Windows users.

- Steph