Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93159 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 96570 invoked from network); 10 May 2016 17:58:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 May 2016 17:58:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:15958] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B5/95-63163-13122375 for ; Tue, 10 May 2016 13:58:10 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2742B2003F7; Tue, 10 May 2016 17:48:13 +0200 (CEST) To: Stanislav Malyshev , internals@lists.php.net References: <59e5902d-004f-33b5-5d6f-991d89371e05@php.net> <2461b452-f595-6fa9-4e33-9e163f79d162@fleshgrinder.com> <27e31902-0cff-3a0b-48cd-7efb4a1155bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <65d3ad62-5159-bd4c-011e-564fb4c1f33c@php.net> Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:57:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <27e31902-0cff-3a0b-48cd-7efb4a1155bb@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160510-1, 10/05/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow loading extensions by name From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Hi, Le 10/05/2016 à 18:54, Stanislav Malyshev a écrit : > The RFC says " it is currently impossible to write a single > configuration file that will work in both environments" - but even with > extension fix, wouldn't it be still impossible since Windows are Unix > paths would probably be different? Yes, of course. As written in the 'Open Issues' section, the fix does not pretend solving every incompatibilities between windows and Unix configurations. I just say, that, in several cases, I had to duplicate configuration files where the only differences were extension file names (mostly when configuration didn't override default paths). Regards François --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus