About PHP NG "document lacking" argument

11 years ago by Laruence — view source — reply

unread

Hey:

First of all,  I don't want to make *that* thead longer...

as you can see, some devers says critically phpng is lacking of

document, and they make that as the main reason for them to against
phpng.

I have to say,  in my opinion it's totally ridiculous.

1. how many devers in here really knows zend engine? how many

tried to know it?
I assume a little, as you can see, only a few activate zend
engine maintainers now. dmitry is the most experience one.

2. does PHP really has had a good API document?

    no,  when I first tried to write a extension,  I found no

documents, or they was far beyond outdate, I event don't know how
config.m4 works..

    I learn PHP by reading the codes, and the example under ext/*

3. is document really important for PHPng?

    I don't think so,  PHP can always read the codes, PHP is

opensource , it is not MS who need document to tell people what it
did in dark.

 4.  is PHPng API became more ugly?  or harder to maintainable?

    I feel really bad to see somebody said such things...

    first of all. ugly, maintainable. it is too too subjective,

and to be honest, it's obviously biased attitude.

     second,  I , the main author of PHPNG, and Nikita, Dmitry,

are the most activate internal contributors now. so you are saying we
are writing ugly codes? I really can not agree with that.

     actually, the zend_hash API become more clear, and beatifuy

than before.

     maintainable?  who is the main force to maintain the PHP

internal now? yes, the authors of PHPNG..

     I think I have the more rights to say whether it is more

maintainer able or not.

     and it's become more maintainable, because of more clean API

and more reasonable logics.

5. are we going to write docs?

    yes,  for people, who in love with PHP, who want to make PHP

extensions, we are glad to write some APIs (which will be enough in a
dever eye).

   actually we already doing it: https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading

6. is PHPng really faster?

    yes, from my own test, it get more than 80% qps improvement in

wordpress than php-5.6 . for those big PHP users, that means they can
save lots of money.

    I see no reason to not have such a great change. anyone who

tried to block such a amazing feature merge into PHP, is doing crime
for PHP.

I am not a native english speaker,  so maybe I confused you in

some words , sorry for that.

I really hope the people in this group, the people who loves PHP,
the people who want PHP become more popular here. stop less reasonable
arguing, let's together to make this biggest change merge into PHP,
make PHP users more easy life..

If you think we need write doc, let us write it.

If you think we need more clean APIs? please tell me what style is
more clean, we can disccuss it, refactor it.

If you meet problems when you try to upgrade you extension from PHP
to PHPng, let's add more info into the doc, or I can do some part of
your work for you. as I have almost refactor all the extensions under
ext/

and what do you want else?

please, just, please, stop the worthless talking, I really don't
want to see such useless words anymore..

thanks

--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

11 years ago by Laruence — view source — reply

unread

Hey:

Hey:
First of all,  I don't want to make *that* thead longer...

as you can see, some devers says critically phpng is lacking of
document, and they make that as the main reason for them to against
phpng.
I have to say,  in my opinion it's totally ridiculous.

1. how many devers in here really knows zend engine? how many
tried to know it?
I assume a little, as you can see, only a few activate zend
engine maintainers now. dmitry is the most experience one.
2. does PHP really has had a good API document?

    no,  when I first tried to write a extension,  I found no
documents, or they was far beyond outdate, I event don't know how
config.m4 works..
    I learn PHP by reading the codes, and the example under ext/*

3. is document really important for PHPng?

    I don't think so,  PHP can always read the codes, PHP is
opensource , it is not MS who need document to tell people what it
did in dark.
 4.  is PHPng API became more ugly?  or harder to maintainable?

    I feel really bad to see somebody said such things...

    first of all. ugly, maintainable. it is too too subjective,
and to be honest, it's obviously biased attitude.
     second,  I , the main author of PHPNG, and Nikita, Dmitry,
are the most activate internal contributors now. so you are saying we
are writing ugly codes? I really can not agree with that.
     actually, the zend_hash API become more clear, and beatifuy
than before.
     maintainable?  who is the main force to maintain the PHP
internal now? yes, the authors of PHPNG..
     I think I have the more rights to say whether it is more
maintainer able or not.
     and it's become more maintainable, because of more clean API
and more reasonable logics.
5. are we going to write docs?

    yes,  for people, who in love with PHP, who want to make PHP
extensions, we are glad to write some APIs (which will be enough in a
dever eye).
   actually we already doing it: https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading

6. is PHPng really faster?

    yes, from my own test, it get more than 80% qps improvement in
wordpress than php-5.6 . for those big PHP users, that means they can
save lots of money.
    I see no reason to not have such a great change. anyone who
tried to block such a amazing feature merge into PHP, is doing crime
for PHP.
I am not a native english speaker,  so maybe I confused you in
some words , sorry for that.

I really hope the people in this group, the people who loves PHP,
the people who want PHP become more popular here. stop less reasonable
arguing, let's together to make this biggest change merge into PHP,
make PHP users more easy life..

If you think we need write doc, let us write it.

If you think we need more clean APIs? please tell me what style is
more clean, we can disccuss it, refactor it.

If you meet problems when you try to upgrade you extension from PHP
to PHPng, let's add more info into the doc, or I can do some part of
your work for you. as I have almost refactor all the extensions under
ext/

and what do you want else?

please, just, please, stop the worthless talking, I really don't
want to see such useless words anymore..

 for those who don't know me yet..

 I am Xinchen Hui, from china, the author of the first PHP

extension PHP framework Yaf, the first PHP occurrent RPC framework
Yar, and Yac a user data cache. lua..

 I am also the maintainer of msgpack, opcache.

 I start contribute to PHP from 2011, and I am also the main author of PHPNG

 I care performance of PHP very much, since I am also the chief

architect of Weibo. we have thousands machines run PHP..

 and * I will keep contributing to PHP, PHPNG *,  so I think you

could trust me that I love PHP, and PHP NG is the most amazing work I
have participated in.

thanks

thanks

--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

11 years ago by Ferenc Kovacs — view source — reply

unread

Hey:
First of all,  I don't want to make *that* thead longer...

as you can see, some devers says critically phpng is lacking of
document, and they make that as the main reason for them to against
phpng.
I have to say,  in my opinion it's totally ridiculous.

1. how many devers in here really knows zend engine? how many
tried to know it?
I assume a little, as you can see, only a few activate zend
engine maintainers now. dmitry is the most experience one.
2. does PHP really has had a good API document?

    no,  when I first tried to write a extension,  I found no
documents, or they was far beyond outdate, I event don't know how
config.m4 works..
    I learn PHP by reading the codes, and the example under ext/*

3. is document really important for PHPng?

    I don't think so,  PHP can always read the codes, PHP is
opensource , it is not MS who need document to tell people what it
did in dark.
 4.  is PHPng API became more ugly?  or harder to maintainable?

    I feel really bad to see somebody said such things...

    first of all. ugly, maintainable. it is too too subjective,
and to be honest, it's obviously biased attitude.
     second,  I , the main author of PHPNG, and Nikita, Dmitry,
are the most activate internal contributors now. so you are saying we
are writing ugly codes? I really can not agree with that.
     actually, the zend_hash API become more clear, and beatifuy
than before.
     maintainable?  who is the main force to maintain the PHP
internal now? yes, the authors of PHPNG..
     I think I have the more rights to say whether it is more
maintainer able or not.
     and it's become more maintainable, because of more clean API
and more reasonable logics.
5. are we going to write docs?

    yes,  for people, who in love with PHP, who want to make PHP
extensions, we are glad to write some APIs (which will be enough in a
dever eye).
   actually we already doing it: https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading

6. is PHPng really faster?

    yes, from my own test, it get more than 80% qps improvement in
wordpress than php-5.6 . for those big PHP users, that means they can
save lots of money.
    I see no reason to not have such a great change. anyone who
tried to block such a amazing feature merge into PHP, is doing crime
for PHP.
I am not a native english speaker,  so maybe I confused you in
some words , sorry for that.

I really hope the people in this group, the people who loves PHP,
the people who want PHP become more popular here. stop less reasonable
arguing, let's together to make this biggest change merge into PHP,
make PHP users more easy life..

If you think we need write doc, let us write it.

If you think we need more clean APIs? please tell me what style is
more clean, we can disccuss it, refactor it.

If you meet problems when you try to upgrade you extension from PHP
to PHPng, let's add more info into the doc, or I can do some part of
your work for you. as I have almost refactor all the extensions under
ext/

and what do you want else?

please, just, please, stop the worthless talking, I really don't
want to see such useless words anymore..

thanks

--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

--

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.

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

11 years ago by Jocelyn Fournier — view source — reply

unread

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

11 years ago by Zeev Suraski — view source — reply

unread

Jocelyn,

I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry and
Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.

I think we'd all welcome a new edition of the Sara book, but it happens
that the main people who work on PHP internals aren't exactly the book
authoring types... We'd need others to step in and contribute, perhaps
turn that migration doc into something better.

Zeev

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Jocelyn Fournier <
jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com> wrote:

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

11 years ago by Ferenc Kovacs — view source — reply

unread

Jocelyn,

I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry
and Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.

I think we'd all welcome a new edition of the Sara book, but it happens
that the main people who work on PHP internals aren't exactly the book
authoring types... We'd need others to step in and contribute, perhaps
turn that migration doc into something better.

I really liked what Julien, Anthony and Nikita did with
http://www.phpinternalsbook.com/ I think it would be pretty awesome if we
could have talented people like them continue working on documenting the
current and upcoming internal "api" (preferably under the php.net umbrella,
but ofc. it is their decision as the content creators).

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

11 years ago by Nikita Popov — view source — reply

unread

Jocelyn,

I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry
and Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.

I think we'd all welcome a new edition of the Sara book, but it happens
that the main people who work on PHP internals aren't exactly the book
authoring types... We'd need others to step in and contribute, perhaps
turn that migration doc into something better.

I really liked what Julien, Anthony and Nikita did with
http://www.phpinternalsbook.com/ I think it would be pretty awesome if we
could have talented people like them continue working on documenting the
current and upcoming internal "api" (preferably under the php.net
umbrella,
but ofc. it is their decision as the content creators).

I assume that we'll update our content to use the APIs implemented in PHP
next, or rather have a separate version using those APIs. But doing that
kind of work only makes sense once PHP next is released or at least close
to a release. Especially given the complaints of some parties regarding the
current API, I expect that it may still undergo non-trivial changes before
we get to a release.

For now I think that the migration guide that is currently in progress,
should be sufficient for extension authors familiar with the current API to
make their extensions phpng compatible. Documentation targeting new
extension authors (like sara's book or ours) is not critical at this time
and writing it now is not worthwhile, because the API is not frozen.

Nikita

11 years ago by Ferenc Kovacs — view source — reply

unread

Jocelyn,

I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry
and Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.

I think we'd all welcome a new edition of the Sara book, but it happens
that the main people who work on PHP internals aren't exactly the book
authoring types... We'd need others to step in and contribute, perhaps
turn that migration doc into something better.

I really liked what Julien, Anthony and Nikita did with
http://www.phpinternalsbook.com/ I think it would be pretty awesome if we
could have talented people like them continue working on documenting the
current and upcoming internal "api" (preferably under the php.net
umbrella,
but ofc. it is their decision as the content creators).

I assume that we'll update our content to use the APIs implemented in PHP
next, or rather have a separate version using those APIs. But doing that
kind of work only makes sense once PHP next is released or at least close
to a release. Especially given the complaints of some parties regarding the
current API, I expect that it may still undergo non-trivial changes before
we get to a release.

For now I think that the migration guide that is currently in progress,
should be sufficient for extension authors familiar with the current API to
make their extensions phpng compatible. Documentation targeting new
extension authors (like sara's book or ours) is not critical at this time
and writing it now is not worthwhile, because the API is not frozen.

Nikita

absolutely!

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

11 years ago by Julien Pauli — view source — reply

unread

Jocelyn,

I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry
and Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.

I think we'd all welcome a new edition of the Sara book, but it happens
that the main people who work on PHP internals aren't exactly the book
authoring types... We'd need others to step in and contribute, perhaps
turn that migration doc into something better.

I really liked what Julien, Anthony and Nikita did with
http://www.phpinternalsbook.com/ I think it would be pretty awesome if we
could have talented people like them continue working on documenting the
current and upcoming internal "api" (preferably under the php.net
umbrella,
but ofc. it is their decision as the content creators).

Yuuup it's a hard work often taken from our personnal time about our
personnal experience with the API.

We wouldn't mind at all merging this under php.net and giving it a PHP
licence or something like that.
We wrote this doc for the PHP project somehow to thank it.

It's far from beeing finished, but we should have chapters about the engine
soon (parser - compiler - executor) for example.

For PHP-Next API, whatever it will be , as it is far from beeing stable and
"useful" , this would happen later.

Julien

11 years ago by Zeev Suraski — view source — reply

unread

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.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Ferenc. That's why I'm reluctant to
participate in this game.

Zeev

11 years ago by JoshyPHP — view source — reply

unread

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.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Ferenc. That's why I'm reluctant to
participate in this game.

Do you realize that "I think that some people are doing bad things" is
a vague character assassination? The other side of that argument is "I
feel like some companies wink wink develop things in secret then
pressure the list into accepting them blindly."

You cannot use that and claim the high road.

11 years ago by Zeev Suraski — view source — reply

unread

-----Original Message-----
From: JoshyPHP [mailto:phpwnd@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 3:59 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Ferenc Kovacs; Laruence; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About PHP NG "document lacking" argument

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.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Ferenc. That's why I'm
reluctant to participate in this game.

Do you realize that "I think that some people are doing bad things" is a
vague
character assassination?

I'd prefer that over a non-vague and very public character assassination
that me and others are experiencing instead.

I'm also wondering why you're replying to me, when it's Ferenc that made the
statement (that I backed). Ferenc, as an 'innocent bystander', sees things
the way they are in a non-biased way. I think most active participants here
know exactly what he's talking about.

The other side of that argument is "I feel like some
companies wink wink develop things in secret then pressure the list
into
accepting them blindly."

I'm done apologizing for helping to almost double PHP's performance.
I'm also done explaining why that was the only practical way, which should
be obvious considering how we can't even agree on required majorities should
be obvious, and was always the way major versions came to be (with the
exception of PHP 6, RIP).

Zeev

11 years ago by Jonny Stirling — view source — reply

unread

The circumstances that surround the development of NG are very much in the
past now. Secret or not, it's done and we now have NG. This is a good
thing™ and
is not the subject of the debate nor a need for people to be apologising
for their hard work.

Ignoring the "having a go" items that appear to be getting flung around at
the moment, can we perhaps move forward.

There has been a request for more documentation. I see nothing wrong with
this request, and there is nothing blocking about it. It is up to the RFC
OP to decide whether it goes to vote, and the current idea is that the vote
will begin in 2 weeks (- a few days) as per the voting RFC from what I've
read. Perfect, that's the way it should be. There are now ~2 weeks for the
NG devs to put some time into actioning any requests should they wish,
it's not a requirement. People are of course able to lobby for their
preferred option and perhaps will if they feel strongly one way or another,
but lets try and keep it professional(ish)?

Whether or not requests for more information / whatever get answered
(fully, partially or not at all) is up to the NG devs but action / inaction
may have an impact on voting (as it should). We should assume that people
voting will use their best judgement based on the available / lack of
information.

So, requesting things is not a blocker, providing requested items is
optionally actionable by the relevant people to a degree they deem
appropriate, and people will vote accordingly.

Hurrah!

Zeev, with respect to your last point, I responded asking for comment re
the NG branch on the other thread. A response one way or another may help
(though may not) confirming voting options.

2 cents.

Cheers.
Jonny.

11 years ago by Josh Davis — view source — reply

unread

I'd prefer that over a non-vague and very public character assassination
that me and others are experiencing instead.

I cannot comment on that statement but character assassination is bad
either way, sure.

I'm also wondering why you're replying to me, when it's Ferenc that made the
statement (that I backed). Ferenc, as an 'innocent bystander', sees things
the way they are in a non-biased way. I think most active participants here
know exactly what he's talking about.

I did write a piquant response to Ferenc Kovacs's mail, I just didn't
send it. I didn't send it because I estimated it would do more harm
than good. I replied to your mail because you tried to have it both
way, and I felt someone had to call it. You backed Ferenc Kovacs's
vague accusatory statement while trying to take the high road by
claiming you didn't want to "participate in this game." If you're so
reluctant, just don't press "Send." But if you press "Send" you have
responsibility for it.

Your comment that an 'innocent bystander' sees things in a non-biased
way strikes me as odd; Bias exists in everyone. Do you think it's
possible that you find Ferenc Kovacs's opinion unbiased because it
matches yours? What if another innocent bystander expresses concerns
about the lack of communication surrounding the development of PHPNG?

During heated debates in mailing lists in general, and perhaps this
one in particular, there is an echo chamber effect that makes the
opinion of the most vocal participants seem truer due to repetition.
Regardless, that last statement seems to be an argument by consensus
or "argumentum ad populum" for the pedants.

I'm sorry that this debate is hampered by personal attacks, vague
accusations and clique mentality. I wish it will eventually rise above
it. I wish there were fewer messages like this one and more about ways
to remediate the situation.

11 years ago by Zeev Suraski — view source — reply

unread

I'm sorry that this debate is hampered by personal attacks, vague
accusations
and clique mentality. I wish it will eventually rise above it. I wish
there were
fewer messages like this one and more about ways to remediate the
situation.

With that I absolutely agree so let's stop here.

Zeev

11 years ago by gaochunhui@gmail.com — view source — reply

unread

+1024... :-)

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: laruence@gmail.com [mailto:laruence@gmail.com] 代表 Laruence
发送时间: 2014年7月25日 14:57
收件人: PHP Internals
主题: [PHP-DEV] About PHP NG "document lacking" argument

Hey:

First of all,  I don't want to make *that* thead longer...

as you can see, some devers says critically phpng is lacking of document,  and they make that as the main reason for them to against phpng.

I have to say,  in my opinion it's totally ridiculous.

1. how many devers in here really knows zend engine? how many tried to know it?
    I assume a little, as you can see, only a few activate zend engine maintainers now.  dmitry is the most experience one.

2. does PHP really has had a good API document?

    no,  when I first tried to write a extension,  I found no documents, or they was far beyond outdate, I event don't know how

config.m4 works..

    I learn PHP by reading the codes, and the example under ext/*

3. is document really important for PHPng?

    I don't think so,  PHP can always read the codes, PHP is opensource , it is not *MS* who need document to tell people what it did in dark.

 4.  is PHPng API became more ugly?  or harder to maintainable?

    I feel really bad to see somebody said such things...

    first of all. ugly, maintainable. it is too too subjective, and to be honest, it's obviously biased attitude.

     second,  I , the main author of PHPNG, and Nikita, Dmitry, are the most activate internal contributors now.  so you are saying we are writing ugly codes? I really can not agree with that.

     actually, the zend_hash API become more clear, and beatifuy than before.

     maintainable?  who is the main force to maintain the PHP internal now? yes, the authors of PHPNG..

     I think I have the more rights to say whether it is more maintainer able or not.

     and it's become more maintainable, because of more clean API and more reasonable logics.

5. are we going to write docs?

    yes,  for people, who in love with PHP, who want to make PHP extensions, we are glad to write some APIs (which will be enough in a dever eye).

   actually we already doing it: https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading

6. is PHPng really faster?

    yes, from my own test, it get more than 80% qps improvement in wordpress than php-5.6 . for those big PHP users, that means they can save lots of money.

    I see no reason to not have such a great change. anyone who tried to block such a amazing feature merge into PHP, is doing crime for PHP.

I am not a native english speaker,  so maybe I confused you in some words , sorry for that.

I really hope the people in this group, the people who loves PHP, the people who want PHP become more popular here. stop less reasonable arguing, let's together to make this biggest change merge into PHP, make PHP users more easy life..

If you think we need write doc, let us write it.

If you think we need more clean APIs? please tell me what style is more clean, we can disccuss it, refactor it.

If you meet problems when you try to upgrade you extension from PHP to PHPng, let's add more info into the doc, or I can do some part of your work for you. as I have almost refactor all the extensions under ext/

and what do you want else?

please, just, please, stop the worthless talking, I really don't want to see such useless words anymore..

thanks

--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/