Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:42445
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:20:03 +0100
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Message-ID: <1715852784.20090102152003@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>
CC: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>, 
	"George Antoniadis" <george@noodles.gr>, "Timm Friebe" <thekid@thekid.de>, 
	"Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>, <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	=?iso-8859-15?Q?=22=5CJohannes_Schl=FCter=22?= <johannes@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <A8640977-6AEF-47AC-B029-052AE7638AD6@pooteeweet.org>
References: <01d401c8fe5e$6bc9d730$16b2a8c0@kartofel> <7EB12BC1-41F1-458C-8017-9AB4D910CAA5@pooteeweet.org> <FCBBD5E8B47B451A816FCB6B42C7477C@carla> <A5A404F4-2477-44C0-A1CC-EE911FB17BA4@pooteeweet.org> <48EFC1E8.5030702@zend.com> <5D4A905B-E361-409B-BD9E-E816482EDB8C@pooteeweet.org> <4D165E1668394935B126876B72D487CF@carla> <641f88250812311636l7fc8b29x34d4250763cdb903@mail.gmail.com> <49801FDC-2DFD-4A38-AC87-7AE9CBF893B9@pooteeweet.org> <1589625320.20090101145631@marcus-boerger.de> <fe05d1540901010855h159c3208t7e2e70b91cf71867@mail.gmail.com> <A8640977-6AEF-47AC-B029-052AE7638AD6@pooteeweet.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] __getStatic
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Lukas,

Friday, January 2, 2009, 2:59:40 PM, you wrote:


> On 01.01.2009, at 17:55, Pierre Joye wrote:

>> hi!
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:
>>> Hello Lukas,
>>>
>>> if anything requires an internal API change than we at least should  
>>> do
>>> those parts. Besides this issue was long ago raised and imo should  
>>> go in.
>>> As we get more and more people testing what 5.3 will be we get more  
>>> and
>>> more complains about the lack of these. And isn't that the goal of  
>>> an alpha
>>> verison as well?
>>
>> Agreed. We should actually do a feature freeze after the 1st beta/RC.
>> However, issues like this one should be fixed too after beta/RC, it
>> would be bad to introduce new inconsistencies, saw them during the RC
>> phase but leave them in only because we are in the RC.
>>
>> and best wishes for 2k9! :)


> @Marcus: Like I said its a question of someone writing the code ..  
> Timm proposed a patch which Stas thought had issues and then nobody  
> picked things up ..

There are two things here. One is the __getStatic which I do not care
for personally but which has the potential of requiring c level api
changes. The other is 'static class' as in the patch provided by Lars.
That looks pretty good to me and from what I can tell Lars addressed
all of the issues raised by Stas (a lot were referring to __getStatic
anyway).
http://lars.schokokeks.org/php/static-classes-002.diff
Since this one would imo bring a nice addition in regards to handling
consts as a better choice than defines I'd like to see it in. Also
only this one seems ready. The __getStatic() indeed seems much more
complicated as outlined by Stas in detail.

marcus

> @Pierre/all: Well we did announce something like a freeze. Of course  
> there are still changes going in undiscussed and for the most part  
> this is ok (and not doing those changes would be a bad idea and  
> unnecessary to be delayed). However I would really appreciate it if  
> people would really think about the changes they are doing. Think  
> twice about changes that can introduce a regression or a lot of work  
> and ask if the change has any change of being problematic.

> In this light the dl() change by Marcus (AFAIK this was planned and  
> done for 6.0 and not 5.3) and the windows PCRE change by Andi seem  
> potential candidates for regressions, issues and maybe should have  
> been discussed beforehand. Just using these two has an example since  
> they are the two last commits I marked as potential issues.

Postponing changes that prevent SEGVs for the sake of versioning and
that cannot easily be done later because they require c level api
changes is a no go for me.

> BTW: I was planning on sending out a mail on Monday about beta1.  
> Johannes and I feel like a release on the 20th or 22nd seems realistic.

> regards,
> Lukas Kahwe Smith
> mls@pooteeweet.org







Best regards,
 Marcus