Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56125 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37446 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2011 18:14:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Nov 2011 18:14:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.26.188 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.123.26.188 c2beaomr10.btconnect.com Received: from [213.123.26.188] ([213.123.26.188:30056] helo=mail.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CE/C9-13242-20028BE4 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:14:27 -0500 Received: from host81-138-11-136.in-addr.btopenworld.com (EHLO _10.0.0.4_) ([81.138.11.136]) by c2beaomr10.btconnect.com with ESMTP id EZU02107; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:14:20 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4EB81FFC.5020604@lsces.co.uk> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:14:20 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Firefox/7.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" CC: Anthony Ferrara , PHP internals References: <4EB80053.7050606@php.net> <4EB80846.7090302@lsces.co.uk> <4EB810BB.5030208@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4EB81FFC.0037, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.11.7.165415:17:7.944, ip=81.138.11.136, rules=__MOZILLA_MSGID, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __USER_AGENT, __MIME_VERSION, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __ANY_URI, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, BODY_SIZE_5000_5999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, RDNS_SUSP, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, MULTIPLE_RCPTS X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr10.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0203.4EB81FFE.0107:SCFSTAT14830815,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] SplClassLoader RFC Voting phase From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: >> Actually, I just re-read the RFC again and I noticed something that's >> really irksome to me: >> >>> Implementation extension >> >>> According to new threads in php-standards list, it seems all derived implementations have included these extensions to original support: >> >>> Multiple paths per namespace >>> Silent mode as a flag >> >>> This turns the RFC specification incompatible with current patch. Patch is going to be updated as soon as voting ends. >> >> And the following: >> >>> NOTE: This implementation is not the proposed final. It requires two updates: >>> * Multiple paths per namespace >>> * Silent mode >> >> If the RFC is changing (which hasn't really been done so with the >> exception of a few TODO notes), how can we vote on it? We're voting >> on the RFC which is a moving target? > > Actually, it's not moving. > I enlisted that RFC was still incomplete, I detailed every change that > was missing and I even discussed that on the SplClassLoader thread. > The comments during the discussion thread is kept. I'm just updating > the RFC when I have 5 free minutes. > >> >> I make a formal motion to stop the vote at this time, stabilize and >> finalize the RFC and bring that finalized RFC to a vote at a later >> date (after at least a reduced round of discussion time has taken >> place). Otherwise what are we really voting on, if we think PSR-0 is >> important? The RFC is about putting in an implementation which as of >> now is not fully specified either in text or in example. How can we >> vote on a moving target...? >> > > Again, it's not moving. > >> Anthony >> >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: >>> Well, with respect to that, are there any examples of where PHP >>> currently "reserves the namespace"? I can declare functions/classes >>> for every single disablable/PECL extension right now. So is there >>> even a method to "reserve a namespace", yet alone enforce that in >>> core? >>> >>> And with respect to the re-compile, what usually happens is that the >>> windows builds ship with DLLs of the compiled extensions. So it's not >>> a "part of the core compile", but an extension that can be enabled via >>> php.ini (as is currently working with apc, mbstring, mysql, mysqli, >>> etc). >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Lester Caine wrote: >>>> Anthony Ferrara wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Lester, >>>>> >>>>> I think he was referring to something like the MySQL/bcmath/etc >>>>> extension where it ships in core, but is disabled by default (requires >>>>> a compile-time option). >>>>> >>>>> I think what you interpreted it as is basically just what PECL is for >>>>> and how it works? Considering that it would basically be just `pecl >>>>> install PSRClassLoader`? And at that point there's no reason for >>>>> anything in the core (even reserving a namespace). That's how other >>>>> extensions (even popular ones like apc) work now... >>>>> >>>>> Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean...? >>>> >>>> Actually the "reserve the namespace" is probably the important piece of the >>>> jigsaw? >>>> Also while Linux 'installs' can easily 'recompile', windows builds are >>>> necessarily pre-compiled, so what is compiled in and what is available via >>>> an extension becomes more important. >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Lester Caine wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastian Bergmann wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1- The same as you wrote. Having it in SPL and in PHP 5.4 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2- Have it in PHP 5.4 as an external extension (FIG, PSR or PSG), >>>>>>>>> enabled by default. >>>>>>>>> 3- As an external extension, disabled by default. This would require >>>>>>>>> PHP core to reserve the namespace for us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are missing 4: not have it at all (which would get my +1). >>>>>> >>>>>> 3 would be acceptable if external extensions were downloaded separately >>>>>> to >>>>>> the core distribution ... but I suppose that IS 4 ;) >>>>>> Isn't it about time we considered a better distribution model for >>>>>> additions >>>>>> like this? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php PLEASE TRIM .............................................. -- 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