Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52712 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31674 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2011 22:11:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Jun 2011 22:11:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.199.177.89 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.199.177.89 il-mr1.zend.com Received: from [212.199.177.89] ([212.199.177.89:45068] helo=il-mr1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CA/C4-32367-BF8B6ED4 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:11:10 -0400 Received: from il-gw1.zend.com (unknown [10.1.1.22]) by il-mr1.zend.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51517606E1; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 01:10:01 +0300 (IDT) Received: from IL-EX2.zend.net ([fe80::60b2:93c9:cabf:4659]) by il-ex2.zend.net ([fe80::60b2:93c9:cabf:4659%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0255.000; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 01:10:51 +0300 To: Pierre Joye , Dmitry Stogov CC: John Crenshaw , PHP internals Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Final version, RFC release process Thread-Index: AQHMIEQRuEAVEIz03U+USCkPD/SqMJSoJWWAgAADSwCAAFuOgIAABF0AgACHcJA= Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:10:50 +0000 Message-ID: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A492FB8AD@il-ex2.zend.net> References: <4DE61D77.7040506@zend.com> <4DE66D07.2060105@zend.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [212.199.177.84] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Final version, RFC release process From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) > However, what you refer to is about internals API. We can (and did a > lot) break ABI between x.y and x.y+1 and should really avoid breaking API > (read: signatures, source compatibility) if possible. I think we need to clear it up in the RFC. My take: - Switch from talking about 'ABI' to 'extension API'=20 - Divide the extension API into source-level and binary-level - For x.y+1, make it clear that there's no need to retain binary-level exte= nsion API, and that source-level extension API is a 'should' and not a 'mus= t'. Zeev