Hi Pierre,
Exactly and I'm rather surprised to see this post given the recent efforts to export the Zip symbols to allow any extension to share the zip features.
I think until the zip features were shared the library's limitations hadn't been too obvious.
Most of the discussions have been public on pecl-dev. There is some private discussions about our respective plans, even today.
Not that I'm aware of... I can say that the goals and APIs are different, there is a
need for both extensions (zip will never provide what phar does for the application archive and pahr will never go as far as zip for the zip format support), that's my understanding of the current situation.
That's my understanding too.
However, my point remains intact, I'm not in favour of having phar included. Unless there is an improved cooperation with the community (in large) to create this application-archive format.
What exactly would we need to do to improve cooperation? It would really
rock to have a standard format designed, approved and adopted by all PHP developers and projects. At this point we can bundle it or it may be a chicken-egg problem :)
Well, that's why the aim is to get it bundled now. Because using the Phar extension you can now optionally write phars that can be opened by: tar (+ bzip2/zlib), zip (including Windows Explorer), or plain PHP, either CLI or through a browser, using the default stub; it's about as flexible as anyone could want it to be. There's still also the option to write phars that require ext/phar enabled before they can be read, which personally I think is a bad idea but Marcus wanted it that way.
- Steph
Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
