Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38654 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 23309 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2008 07:27:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Jun 2008 07:27:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.94.239.7 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.7 mail.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.94.239.7] ([82.94.239.7:37129] helo=mail.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 29/46-20466-B6694684 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:27:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5R7RZd3012856; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:27:35 +0200 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:27:35 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@kossu.ez.no To: Scott MacVicar cc: Pierre Joye , internals , Sara Golemon In-Reply-To: <486423F4.9080405@php.net> Message-ID: References: <4843CCB4.8050004@php.net> <486423F4.9080405@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Drop ext/mhash and add an emulation layer in ext/hash (5.3+), call for help From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Scott MacVicar wrote: > Pierre Joye wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote: > > > Pierre Joye wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > While working on the windows ports, I asked Sara about the mhash > > > > > > status in regard of the new shiny ext/hash. The plan is to remove > > > > > > ext/hash completely and emulate it in ext/hash to keep the BC. It > > > > > > could even a configuration flag if one likes to be sure to clean his > > > > > > code to use only the hash APIs. > > > > > The mhash extension features some more versions of some algorithms: > > > > > http://mhash.sourceforge.net/ But why bother changing it? > > > > Which algo(s) (or algo version) is not supported by ext/hash? I did > > > > not spot one after a quick read. > > > > > > > sha192 and sha224 > > > snefru128 > > > md2 > > > > > > > > I've not heard of any issues about ext/mhash. > > > > My main reasons would be to do not have to maintain ext/mhash and the > > > > libmhash Windows port. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > I'm happy to see us removing a dependency, especially if it makes thigns > > > easier to build on Windows. > > > > In case someone likes to do it, Scott has volunteered and has already > > added some of the missing algo in hash. He will also add the BC layer. > > ext/mhash now wraps around ext/hash in 5.3 > > I'd like to recommend we add a E_DEPRECATED to anything mhash_* related and > drop the extension for 6? Why? The idea of this was not to get rid of mhash, it was to prevent the dependency on a library. I don't think we should just start getting rid of mhash. regards, Derick