Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74068 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18394 invoked from network); 8 May 2014 20:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 May 2014 20:50:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.115 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.115 smtp115.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.115] ([108.166.43.115:59734] helo=smtp115.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C3/B5-15882-30EEB635 for ; Thu, 08 May 2014 16:50:12 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp7.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4C4711B87E1; Thu, 8 May 2014 16:50:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp7.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id E6C151B87EC; Thu, 8 May 2014 16:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <536BEE00.5060906@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 13:50:08 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tjerk Meesters , Dmitry Stogov CC: PHP Internals References: <1CB4131A-13AA-4061-94F6-CA3B3EB1DB3E@ajf.me> <5FB10F5A-C78A-47C7-ABD1-A1CA1426B122@ajf.me> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] phpng: Refactored PHP Engine with Big Performance Improvement From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > My question is how to best approach this to maintain backwards > compatibility? I think this is best targeted for next major version, in which cases the extensions probably will have to have separate version/branch. With the depth of the changes done, I really don't see a good way to run both from the same codebase without making it either completely incomprehensible or very unstable. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227