Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52689 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62837 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2011 17:02:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Jun 2011 17:02:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.203 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.203 smtp203.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.203] ([67.192.241.203:44063] helo=smtp203.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E5/1B-32367-A9076ED4 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 13:02:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp10.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 369871B8271; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:02:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp10.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id D208D1B818F; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DE67097.9090002@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:02:15 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zeev Suraski CC: PHP internals References: <4DE61D77.7040506@zend.com> <4DE66D07.2060105@zend.com> <4DE66DD8.7080804@sugarcrm.com> <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A492FAC35@il-ex2.zend.net> In-Reply-To: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A492FAC35@il-ex2.zend.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Final version, RFC release process From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > There's something between the user level API and the ABI - which is source level compatibility. That's a good point. We'd like to keep source-level incompatibilities to a minimum - especially for simple extensions, not like APC :) - but I agree it may be hard to maintain at 100% if we do engine improvements. Maybe we should have different criteria for something like APC (which is very deep in the internals) and something like memcached (which needs much less from internals). -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227