Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65516
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.193 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <5109698C.80205@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:42:20 -0800
Organization: SugarCRM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>
CC: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <5d21b42656d49b4a71d9f808541bd745@mail.gmail.com> <CAJW__o37e4gK9oA2pLEqK5siLNRvm=ojTD7=pC_rUHMm7=59oA@mail.gmail.com> <2867ee446726884cd1ac3c2d185499b4@mail.gmail.com> <CAJW__o2ZRoZSe4_RiUB1X_uxmyeFihiSh=vj7vB-zp8cKe-egQ@mail.gmail.com> <51086B10.1000404@sugarcrm.com> <CAJW__o3-pD4vMy9p78EbHjy7H3zVJLM9yB+8XmyHOxL+Cqrm8Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJW__o3-pD4vMy9p78EbHjy7H3zVJLM9yB+8XmyHOxL+Cqrm8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

> Because it was not developed at php.net for example? How many

I'm not sure what is the meaning here. Nothing is developed "at
php.net", strictly speaking. php.net doesn't have its own development
team that works exclusively for php.net, it just gets code contributions
from volunteers. And many people working right now on PHP have their
salaries paid by major companies, like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook
and so on. Some of them are paid specifically for doing PHP-related
stuff, AFAIK. We had a number of extensions which development was
initiated and/or sponsored by various companies. Could you explain what
"developed at php.net" really means? If I develop some extension on my
laptop and then commit it to git - is is "developed at php.net" or not?

> extensions thats in the core today was not developed somewhere at
> php.net, or was either in PECL first? What I'm saying is that I think
> it should go to PECL first before getting adapted into the core, no
> matter who or where it was developed from if it was not developed
> here, yes I realize I make it sound like an alien artifact as Zeev
> said.

If the problem is that it wasn't in PECL - the RFC says "As the code
becomes available, put it in PECL.". Once that happens, we can discuss
moving it to core - as an extension - should be in 5.5 or later. PECL is
not going away and is the first step anyway.
It seems like what you're saying is that it should be in PECL at least
for a year before it can be merged (please correct me if I'm wrong
here). Now, I can see how it could be for an extension whose usage and
stability is uncertain - we don't know yet if a parser for foobar
protocol is needed or if it actually works, so let's put it in PECL and
wait and see. However, here we know it (bytecode caching) is needed and
this extension has been worked on for many years. Still, if you have
concerns about it - it will be placed in PECL, you could see it and then
make your judgement about schedule and such.
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227