# Moving COM, Socket & mhash to PECL - Thread: https://externals.io/message/26845 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/26845 - Started by Ilia Alshanetsky on 2006-12-08T16:03:23+00:00 - Messages: 20 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #26845 — Ilia Alshanetsky — 2006-12-08T16:03:23+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26845 This is an exploratory e-mail, so don't panic just yet :-). I am thinking of moving the COM, mhash and socket extensions to PECL in 5.2 and 6.0 releases and was hoping to hear for & against arguments. The reason for the making this move are as follows: COM: Un-maintained at this time and has a fairly serious number of bugs (26 by latest count, many of which are crashes) Only usable to Win32 users, which I think we all admit are a minority and can always download readily available binaries from pec4win. Since most of them don't compile the extension from source anyway there is IMHO little reason to bundle the sources with every php package. Moving it to PECL will allow for an independent release cycle, which may allow for faster fix deployment etc... I hoping the move will encourage people and/or companies to start maintaining the extension. mhash: Everything this extension that relies on an external lib to do, is already done by hash extension that is enabled by default and requires no external libs. There is simply no reason to keep it around. sockets: Un-maintained. Majority of what it can do can already by done via streams in a much more consistent and stable fashion. Ilia Alshanetsky --- ## #26846 — Sebastian Bergmann — 2006-12-08T17:22:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26846 · In reply to: #26845 Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > COM: +1 > mhash: +1 > sockets: +1 -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 --- ## #26847 — Antony Dovgal — 2006-12-08T17:39:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26847 · In reply to: #26845 > COM: > mhash: > sockets: +1 +1 +1 -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal --- ## #26848 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2006-12-08T18:01:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26848 · In reply to: #26845 > COM: > Un-maintained at this time and has a fairly serious number of bugs > (26 by latest count, many of which are crashes) I don't think COM should be moved out. Right, it's windows only - but if you are on windows, COM extension is most useful (I used it a number of times and it's really amazing how easily you can do various data processing stuff if you combine power of PHP with, for example, Excel). As for bugs, they certainly need some attention, only moving it to PECL is not going to do them any better :) And as far as I can see, COM extension does not consume any significant resources. So I don't think it's a good idea to move it out. > mhash: > Everything this extension that relies on an external lib to do, is > already done by hash extension that is enabled by default and requires > no external libs. There is simply no reason to keep it around. Sounds convincing to me. Only thing I see is that manual right now does not give clear idea of what algorithms hash extension supports. It's not an argument against moving mhash out but suggestion for improvement :) > sockets: > Un-maintained. > Majority of what it can do can already by done via streams in a much > more consistent and stable fashion. The I guess it's ok to move it to 6.0 but I don't think it's ok for 5.2 since there's a potential for people using it in apps and streams has quite different API so it'd require significant rewrite if people want to use it with standard PHP. Thus, not good to change it in minor version. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ --- ## #26849 — Ilia Alshanetsky — 2006-12-08T18:17:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26849 · In reply to: #26848 > > […] > > I don't think COM should be moved out. Right, it's windows only - > but if you are on windows, COM extension is most useful (I used it > a number of times and it's really amazing how easily you can do > various data processing stuff if you combine power of PHP with, for > example, Excel). As for bugs, they certainly need some attention, > only moving it to PECL is not going to do them any better :) And as > far as I can see, COM extension does not consume any significant > resources. So I don't think it's a good idea to move it out. Well, it does not consume any resources simply because no one is maintaining it ;-). How really different things would be if it were in pecl? I mean afaik COM is not enabled by default on win32, so you still need to enable it manually. So, the only extra step for people who want to use it would be to download it from pecl4win. This updates extensions more frequently then we do releases, so it'd actually give people the ability to get a more stable version (assuming bug fixes are made) far sooner then they'd be able to otherwise. > > […] > > Sounds convincing to me. Only thing I see is that manual right now > does not give clear idea of what algorithms hash extension > supports. It's not an argument against moving mhash out but > suggestion for improvement :) There is a list on http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.hash- algos.php, but I agree that we need a clearer list on the main page of the docs for the hash extension. > > […] > > The I guess it's ok to move it to 6.0 but I don't think it's ok for > 5.2 since there's a potential for people using it in apps and > streams has quite different API so it'd require significant rewrite > if people want to use it with standard PHP. Thus, not good to > change it in minor version. A good point for 5.2, but given that there is no one to support users using this extension if people start using that extension they potentially leading themselves to a dead-end. Given how far the streams have gone lately I do not believe that there is any interest in maintaining this extension any further. Ilia Alshanetsky --- ## #26850 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2006-12-08T18:23:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26850 · In reply to: #26849 > Well, it does not consume any resources simply because no one is > maintaining it ;-). How really different things would be if it were in I meant runtime resources, not developer resources. Like memory, CPU, etc :) > pecl? I mean afaik COM is not enabled by default on win32, so you still > need to enable it manually. So, the only extra step for people who want AFAIK it's not the case. In my builds COM is always enabled and I didn't do anything special. And PECL extension means "no support by standard PHP, you need to do additional effort to get it", which is not good IMHO. COM is pretty basic functionality on Windows. > A good point for 5.2, but given that there is no one to support users > using this extension if people start using that extension they > potentially leading themselves to a dead-end. Given how far the streams We can have notice to that effect in the manual, so that people starting using it (who presumably read the manual before they start writing the code :) would know to move to streams. My concern is not new users but existing code. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ --- ## #26851 — Andi Gutmans — 2006-12-08T18:30:50+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26851 · In reply to: #26845 I'm OK with all except for COM. I've actually used the COM extension quite a bit internally here for reporting and creating Excel files (see one of my blog postings from about a year ago). I think for those who are on Windows it's a really handy extension. Last time I checked it was also always enabled and available which is useful. It also makes sense because when other modules need COM to be initialized it shoud be done only once in the PHP core and so should be available (kind of like libxml serves the other XML extensions). As far as finding a maintainer is concerned, we can check again with Wez. If he doesn't have time we should probably be able to find someone who can look into some of those bugs. Despite bugs, I've never had issues with it. Andi > -----Original Message----- > From: Ilia Alshanetsky [mailto:iliaal@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Ilia Alshanetsky > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 8:03 AM > To: PHP internals > Subject: [PHP-DEV] Moving COM, Socket & mhash to PECL > > This is an exploratory e-mail, so don't panic just yet :-). > I am thinking of moving the COM, mhash and socket extensions > to PECL in > 5.2 and 6.0 releases and was hoping to hear for & against arguments. > The reason for the making this move are as follows: > > COM: > Un-maintained at this time and has a fairly serious > number of bugs > (26 by latest count, many of which are crashes) > Only usable to Win32 users, which I think we all admit > are a minority and can always download readily available > binaries from pec4win. Since most of them don't compile the > extension from source anyway there is IMHO little reason to > bundle the sources with every php package. > Moving it to PECL will allow for an independent release > cycle, which may allow for faster fix deployment etc... > I hoping the move will encourage people and/or > companies to start maintaining the extension. > > mhash: > Everything this extension that relies on an external > lib to do, is already done by hash extension that is enabled > by default and requires no external libs. There is simply no > reason to keep it around. > > sockets: > Un-maintained. > Majority of what it can do can already by done via > streams in a much more consistent and stable fashion. > > > Ilia Alshanetsky > > -- > To > unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php --- ## #26852 — Pierre — 2006-12-08T19:24:58+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26852 · In reply to: #26845 Hello, > This is an exploratory e-mail, so don't panic just yet :-). I am > thinking of moving the COM, mhash and socket extensions to PECL in > 5.2 and 6.0 releases and was hoping to hear for & against arguments. > The reason for the making this move are as follows: > > COM: > Un-maintained at this time and has a fairly serious number of bugs > (26 by latest count, many of which are crashes) It has a lot of bugs yes, but it is useful and works well for many situations. I do not like the idea to move it out of php. > Moving it to PECL will allow for an independent release cycle, which > may allow for faster fix deployment etc... It is possible without moving it out. It could even be a good thing to do it. > I hoping the move will encourage people and/or companies to start > maintaining the extension. There is bugs and it is expected, COM allows a lot of things with a lot of external apps, no wonder. But it works well (for what I did at least, office, IE and XML com). I can try to take a look at the open bugs if Wez is missing the time. > mhash: > Everything this extension that relies on an external lib to do, is > already done by hash extension that is enabled by default and > requires no external libs. There is simply no reason to keep it around. We may move it from php 6.0 and up or at least from 5.3.0. > sockets: > Un-maintained. > Majority of what it can do can already by done via streams in a much > more consistent and stable fashion. +1 from php 6.0 and up but I'm worrying a bit about 5.x code relying on it. --Pierre --- ## #26854 — Derick Rethans — 2006-12-08T19:51:41+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26854 · In reply to: #26845 > This is an exploratory e-mail, so don't panic just yet :-). I am thinking of > moving the COM, mhash and socket extensions to PECL in 5.2 and 6.0 releases > and was hoping to hear for & against arguments. > The reason for the making this move are as follows: > > COM: -1, but we need somebody to have a look at the issues there. > mhash: +1 > sockets: -1 in 5.x, +1 in 6.0 as there are still many people who use this stuff. Also we need to make sure that all the stuff done by ext/socket can also be done by the streams in some way. regards, Derick --- ## #26857 — Zeev Suraski — 2006-12-08T20:18:59+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26857 · In reply to: #26854 At 21:51 08/12/2006, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > […] > thinking of > > […] > >-1, but we need somebody to have a look at the issues there. > > > […] > >+1 > > > […] > >-1 in 5.x, +1 in 6.0 as there are still many people who use this stuff. >Also we need to make sure that all the stuff done by ext/socket can also >be done by the streams in some way. Same as Derick and Stas. Zeev --- ## #26858 — johannes@schlueters.de — 2006-12-08T20:21:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26858 · In reply to: #26849 Hi, > > > > […] +1, easy to install from pecl. > > […] > > […] > A good point for 5.2, but given that there is no one to support users > using this extension if people start using that extension they > potentially leading themselves to a dead-end. Given how far the > streams have gone lately I do not believe that there is any interest > in maintaining this extension any further. In my opinion we shouldn't remove these (mhash and sockets) from a minor release, instead we should mark them as deprecated (using ZEND_ACC_DEPRECATED) so everybody (who cares) get's the error message and can change his code and we can remove it in 5.3/6.0 without users complaining too much. johannes --- ## #26860 — Edin Kadribasic — 2006-12-09T01:37:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26860 · In reply to: #26849 Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > Well, it does not consume any resources simply because no one is > maintaining it ;-). How really different things would be if it were in > pecl? I mean afaik COM is not enabled by default on win32, so you still > need to enable it manually. So, the only extra step for people who want > to use it would be to download it from pecl4win. This updates extensions > more frequently then we do releases, so it'd actually give people the > ability to get a more stable version (assuming bug fixes are made) far > sooner then they'd be able to otherwise. You know wrongly, COM is enabled and built in static as default. Removing it would be a very bad idea IMO, and I don't see why unix users should worry a few extra K in the source tarball. Edin --- ## #26861 — Richard Lynch — 2006-12-09T06:34:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26861 · In reply to: #26845 > COM: > Un-maintained at this time and has a fairly serious number of bugs > (26 by latest count, many of which are crashes) > Only usable to Win32 users, which I think we all admit are a > minority and can always download readily available binaries from > pec4win. Since most of them don't compile the extension from source > anyway there is IMHO little reason to bundle the sources with every > php package. > Moving it to PECL will allow for an independent release cycle, which > may allow for faster fix deployment etc... > I hoping the move will encourage people and/or companies to start > maintaining the extension. +1, so long as the php_com.dll or whatever is readily available somewhere. > mhash: > Everything this extension that relies on an external lib to do, is > already done by hash extension that is enabled by default and > requires no external libs. There is simply no reason to keep it > around. +1 > sockets: > Un-maintained. > Majority of what it can do can already by done via streams in a much > more consistent and stable fashion. This one maks me nervous... Seems like this would get used a fair amount for legacy code to run custom web app/server stuff... I guess anybody smart enough to do that and make it work ought to be able to find/install a PECL extension, though, eh? +0.8 -- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some starving artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? --- ## #26865 — Wez Furlong — 2006-12-09T09:42:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26865 · In reply to: #26845 > COM: > Un-maintained at this time and has a fairly serious number of bugs > (26 by latest count, many of which are crashes) But aside from those problems (which I suspect are mostly duplicates), it works fine for the majority of users. As I told you on IRC, I am not aware of it being critically flawed to the point where it needs to be removed. > Only usable to Win32 users, which I think we all admit are a > minority and can always download readily available binaries from > pec4win. Since most of them don't compile the extension from source > anyway there is IMHO little reason to bundle the sources with every > php package. I also tried to convey that COM is an essential core technology on Windows. Removing it is a very bad idea. It's a bit like suggesting that we make the exec family of functions an optional download. In theory, it sounds like a great idea, in practice, it's a pain in the ass and will leave people wondering what you were smoking :-) In summary: > COM -1 > mhash: > sockets: +1 --Wez. --- ## #26866 — Wez Furlong — 2006-12-09T09:49:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26866 · In reply to: #26851 > As far as finding a maintainer is concerned, we can check again with Wez. If > he doesn't have time we should probably be able to find someone who can look > into some of those bugs. Despite bugs, I've never had issues with it. I'm currently (way!) too busy to look at it, but it sounds like Frank and Pierre have volunteered some time. I'll happily review patches. --Wez. --- ## #26867 — Rob Richards — 2006-12-09T10:26:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26867 · In reply to: #26845 Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > COM: -1. Its core for windows, has little impact on non-windows users other than a few extra KB to download, and works for the most part. > > mhash: > sockets: +1 for both Rob --- ## #26868 — Michael Wallner — 2006-12-09T11:28:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26868 · In reply to: #26845 Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > COM: -0 > mhash: +1 > sockets: +1 for PHP6 Regards, -- Michael --- ## #26869 — Marcus Boerger — 2006-12-09T11:42:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#26869 · In reply to: #26845 Hello Ilia, -1 (*), +1, +1, but I think you mean 5.3 as we have released 5.2 already and I think it is a bad idea to drop in bugfix releases. (*) If someone takes over i am fine with keeping it. I don't like stuff nobody takes care of. If we cannot maintain it, it mostlikely has issues. And those issues might be security related. That is very badfor PHP. Now saying it works for some or most situations doesn't help a tad bit. best regards marcus Friday, December 8, 2006, 5:03:23 PM, you wrote: > This is an exploratory e-mail, so don't panic just yet :-). I am > thinking of moving the COM, mhash and socket extensions to PECL in > 5.2 and 6.0 releases and was hoping to hear for & against arguments. > The reason for the making this move are as follows: > COM: > Un-maintained at this time and has a fairly serious number of bugs > (26 by latest count, many of which are crashes) > Only usable to Win32 users, which I think we all admit are a > minority and can always download readily available binaries from > pec4win. Since most of them don't compile the extension from source > anyway there is IMHO little reason to bundle the sources with every > php package. > Moving it to PECL will allow for an independent release cycle, which > may allow for faster fix deployment etc... > I hoping the move will encourage people and/or companies to start > maintaining the extension. > mhash: > Everything this extension that relies on an external lib to do, is > already done by hash extension that is enabled by default and > requires no external libs. There is simply no reason to keep it around. > sockets: > Un-maintained. > Majority of what it can do can already by done via streams in a much > more consistent and stable fashion. > Ilia Alshanetsky Best regards, Marcus --- ## #27141 — Andy Wharmby — 2006-12-20T09:26:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#27141 · In reply to: #26866 Wez Furlong wrote: > > > […] > > I'm currently (way!) too busy to look at it, but it sounds like Frank > and Pierre have volunteered some time. I'll happily review patches. > > --Wez. > Hi Internals I am still pretty new to PHP but having spent the last couple of months reviewing the PHP code and getting to know how PHP ticks I would be happy to volunteer some time take a look at some of the outstanding issues with the COM extension. I am about to go on vacation for a couple of weeks but I will certainly have time early in 2007 to investigate some of the OPEN defects. As a couple of others (Frank and Pierre) have also volunteered time whats the best way to work this so that we make best use of our time. Should I just add add a comment to a defect when I start investigating it and then post any fixes I come up with to list for review ? Regards Andy Andy Wharmby IBM United Kingdom Limited --- ## #27144 — Antony Dovgal — 2006-12-20T10:19:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/26845#27144 · In reply to: #27141 > Hi Internals > I am still pretty new to PHP but having spent the last couple of > months reviewing the PHP code and > getting to know how PHP ticks I would be happy to volunteer some time > take a look at some of the > outstanding issues with the COM extension. I am about to go on vacation > for a couple of weeks but I > will certainly have time early in 2007 to investigate some of the OPEN > defects. > > As a couple of others (Frank and Pierre) have also volunteered time > whats the best way to work this so that > we make best use of our time. Should I just add add a comment to a > defect when I start investigating it and > then post any fixes I come up with to list for review ? Yes, that would work. Thanks. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal