Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72740
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.204 cause and error)
Message-ID: <53074D8F.5020806@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:58:55 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAEZPtU6ePFu-evVYyknBJa+0M7QZ3f9QvTeu5vvKpnNp_bkbZg@mail.gmail.com>	 <CANgS8h9-KR=7FCZHc2W6XGN0y5HAg1fkjx2_wTvOgEm3ta4=_Q@mail.gmail.com>	 <CAFp73XuNchZm2MOMDVSHTaLMRSVe+gR7u=d=oWJcsWbW0z3mrw@mail.gmail.com>	 <1392661082.3990.265.camel@guybrush> <530278EE.3000008@ralphschindler.com>	 <1392671871.3990.303.camel@guybrush> <53028096.9040603@ralphschindler.com> <1392675539.3990.345.camel@guybrush> <530384A3.7040209@ralphschindler.com>
In-Reply-To: <530384A3.7040209@ralphschindler.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: PHP 6 - Extensions ...
From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)

Ralph Schindler wrote:
>> I know extensions are needed. Still I think PHP is powerful and often
>> (often != always) fast enough.
>
> You're right for sure.  By and large, the argument of the extension vs. userland
> debate is far less technical and more social/cost-benfit driven than anything else.

That PHP supports the range of platforms that it does with the flexibility that 
it does creates it's own problems?

Many users will never have even looked at how their PHP is provided, so a single 
executable over individual modules is academic. It is probably also mixed up 
with the 'compile' verses 'run script' debate? Either way,a hosted PHP 
environment needs to be able to supply all of the extensions that it's client 
base needs, but that may well be at the expense of speed? Being able to load 
only those extensions a script actually needs may result in a much smaller run 
time package? Be that a complied application using dynamic copies of preloaded 
extensions, or a cached set of code using a memory resident set of functions?

Extensions are the only way to handle the diverse range of external code that 
PHP uses, it is purely how those individual packages are combined that is the 
area for debate? Personally I prefer a smaller core than PHP provides by 
default, and my own small set of extensions added dynamically. I can add extra 
facilities simply be loading an additional extension .ini file and restarting 
web/PHP. But I don't believe there be ANY gain in a script being able to only 
use those extensions it needs?

One area that would make a lot more sense to me though is the ability to apply 
security updates to a specific extension and only roll out that one package 
rather than having to wait for the whole PHP distribution to be updated? Linux 
distributions sort of do this providing incremental updates, but actually that 
is more of a hindrance at times! What is being distributed is not necessarily 
the same as the current master code base :(

-- 
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
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk