Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76097
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <53D213D0.7030208@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:22:40 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CABBJUpdLqn_gfUbBUAd=WzzEbBCvuU9ZziNgbNSCbVPRrGSAzw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH7vLV0To4VGj4HSoTG6wxTgBY+R6BJrtHjCjcDR3oCrRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH7vLV0To4VGj4HSoTG6wxTgBY+R6BJrtHjCjcDR3oCrRw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About PHP NG "document lacking" argument
From: jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com (Jocelyn Fournier)

>>
>>
> Hi Laruence,
>
> I do think that some people simply doesn't like phpng (for reasons mostly
> not on technical grounds), and they are bringing up any issue which can
> hinder the acceptance of phpng.
> But I also think that documentation is important, and the reasoning that it
> isn't based on the fact that the current engine is also lacked/lacking
> proper documentation is wrong imo.
> There are a bunch of extensions whose authors already figured out the
> current internals on their own (but stuff like Sara's book helped a bunch
> imo) to make their extension work, but we shouldn't force them yet again to
> learn from reading through the source yet again.
> Also, the less documentation we have, the more likely that the voters won't
> really base their vote on the actual diff, but they beliefs/pre-conceptions
> about phpng.
> As both sides (supporters of phpng and those who are against it) are really
> "loud" to have their arguments heard, I think it would be better for
> everybody if we could have as many voters as possible voting on the actual
> content instead of who has the bigger follower/supporter group.
> And as you mentioned, not that many people are familiar with the Zend
> internals, but the vote is open for any contributors (which we had a few
> rounds of discussion, but it is unlikely to be changed before this goes
> into voting), I think it is even more important to make it possible for the
> less Zend-savy people to make an educated decision about the patch.
> I really like the current progress on https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading
> , and I support your idea of having more people, even outside of the phpng
> devs contributing to the docs.
> (I added a link to the upgrading guide for the rfc page as I've noticed
> that some people wasn't even aware of the existence of the upgrading docs)
>
> I don't think that phpng requires any better or more detailed rfc or docs
> than any other similar rfc, but I do think that improving those will
> improve the "quality" of the votes, and maybe it will calm down some loud
> people seemingly being really frustrated by the lack of documentation.
>

Hi,

I confirm without the sara book, it would have been *really* difficult 
to code my first php extension.
 From my point of view, this API change is a good opportunity to write a 
doc about the PHP API, and how to use it efficiently.

   Jocelyn