Hi Pierre,
OK, I got back to the rest of your email now (caffeine always helps, eh).
I'm not sure it makes sense to have the ssl optional features enabled but not ext/openssl. Or to say it better, I don't see the gain. What is the gain besides being able to say: "heh you can use the ssl features without having ext/openssl but you need the libs anyway"?
You're missing that Windows users don't tend to roll their own PHP. They tend to pick and choose their extensions.
At present, if someone were to load php_openssl.dll from PECL alongside built-in Phar in 5.3 they'd probably wonder why it wasn't working as advertised. If the dependency were made explicit in Phar, the only thing ext/openssl would be needed for is explicit openssl calls - which is far easier to understand.
FWIW, I think having Phar built-in is actually a disadvantage when it comes to this kind of thing. ext/openssl isn't enabled by default and is only available as shared to the vast majority of Windows users.
- Steph
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
