Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55748
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.20.132 cause and error)
Message-ID: <4E901A30.1010500@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:38:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110907 Firefox/6.0.2 SeaMonkey/2.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAH-PCH7ifnqWsCcK6PXfp2BodnxaazqZjqpmdVDRcDgnodwLHg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU5HzURdjnwY0ncreHVQJj6EtNJG5mf4WEYTP70bpP+6UQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E9001FC.2000507@lsces.co.uk> <CAEZPtU66=jfZHOWEHGHCMz7vUiTu1M26ujtE20Mo8kSj-jZ8=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU66=jfZHOWEHGHCMz7vUiTu1M26ujtE20Mo8kSj-jZ8=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] little tweeking on the release process RFC
From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)

Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> >>  I don't see how it is contradictory. SAPIs are self contained and
>>> >>  can't harm another SAPI, that's why we added this clause.
>> >
>> >  This is where the modular/bundled discussion comes in?
> No, it is not, absolutely not. Please do not hijack again this thread
> with this discussion, it is totally off topic.
>
> SAPIs are what makes possible to get PHP works in a shell, apache, fastcgi, etc.
>
> Thanks for your understanding,

Sorry I don't understand why you say this is not the same discussion.

Personally I only use an Apache SAPI but I can quite see that other people want 
a bundle with different SAPI's. These are different targets which a single fully 
bundled distribution is just excessive. The current pressure is to get even more 
things included in an already bloated core bundle, when a sensible debate on a 
more targeted distribution model ... such as like the Linux distributions 
already break things down to ... makes perfect sense to me.

Exactly the same debate is going on with Eclipse distributions, to simplify 
targeted bundles, and make it easier for people to tailor a bundle to their own 
requirements ... individual extension/plugins develop with their own version 
numbers without impinging on the core engine. Self contained modules such as 
individual SAPI's can be develop independently as required, and should not need 
to have a debate on whether they should be bundled or not if the distribution 
model allows their publication as an installation option?

Returning to the rfc process ... what still seems to be missing is a way of 
handling these parallel developments rather than just simply 'throwing them out 
for pecl to handle'?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php