they most likely don't, it is designed for deployment and for running includes directly.
What do you mean "directly"? Do you mean this is designed for running application only specifically crafted to run inside phar and would break some or most of the existing applications not designed specifically for it? Then even less reason to recommend it as a way to deploy real applications.
If need be, i'll write a windows-commander plugin :-)
Will you also write plugins for all thousand other tools people use or only for those two you personally use? ;) Note that for all other formats the tools are out there *today*. You can open zip or tgz on almost any system in existence, and almost any file manager you could find understands these formats or natively or with tons of readily available plugins.
pear install phar - or - pecl install phar - done oh wait the point is that pecl install doesn't work or is in 99% no option
And what is "pear install"? I don't have such command in my Windows by default. Neither I have it on my Linux. I would have to install PEAR for that, right? Even only to know what's inside.
slow? bigger? overhead?
Meaning, of no practical use nobody would package their real-world apps this way. Then I guess it's not really an option?
Interesting and not maintained for the most. Sometimes working on one or the other very specific php version only. And often even without documentation.
This is as I see for very specific applications too, and the manual says there's no currently stable version of phar. My opinion is that it is not right to recommend it as preferred way to deploy PHP applications. I know there are many people that it suits their needs - but those people as I understand have to keep in mind they work for phar anyway, so they might as well install one more extension.
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
