Hello Derick,
Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 5:02:32 PM, you wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>> I have to agree with this. The concept of PECL windows binaries depends on the
>> fact that PHP extensions are binary compatible among patchlevel versions. I
>> guess authors of propriatory PHP extensions would face the same problem.
>>
>> If we absolutely need to fix this, prior to 5.1.0 release the only responsible
>> thing to do would be to rename 5.0.3 -> to 5.1.0 and move HEAD branch to
>> 5.2.0.
> I would be against the latter, so IMO we should return the signature to > the previous version.
I agree here and to me the issue just proves that we released 5.0 far to early.
I disagree, I think we actually released it quite a bit too late. The far-beyond-my-prediction adoption rate of PHP 5 attests to that, in my opinion. People need it, and they need it now (many of them not because of the OO features at all, but because of the better XML, SOAP, MySQL, etc. support in there).
And i don't like to change because the things i am doing rely on this "FIX".
I imagined this would be the case, but what do you suggest? We can't change the signature without actually restoring binary compatibility, and there's more or less consensus that we need to revert. If you need that patch so badly the only solutions I can think of is using 5.1 or maintaining a separate patch...
Zeev
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
