On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>wrote:
> Hi! > > > That was also the reasons why they are not present in our stream >> implementation. I could image something for touch (there is a FR for >> it afair) as it is very easy to emulate on stream where it could not >> work, but really not for ch*. >> > > We have chmod now defined on all systems. However good or bad it is, I see > no problems in doing the same for streams. Streams that don't have this > semantics are free to not define this handler or not to support this > particular option, as happens with other optional handlers - e.g., mkdir > makes no sense for sockets, but that doesn't prevent mkdir from existing in > streams or socket streams from working fine. If you look at the docs, you > see there's even a section for streams saying what's supported and what's > not by particular stream, so obviously streams not supporting some > capabilities always were fine. So where's the problem? > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > >From the sideline: it's hard to belive that there are no one else with opinion on this matter. I don't want to take sides because I don't have the necessary knowledge about the matter, but maybe it would be a good idea to write an RFC, and and maybe a POC, so we can see how intrusive would be the implementation. and if there are more bystanders, then please make your voice heard. Tyrael
