"For all those things you.... probably shouldn't have been doing anyway...." That description is on the package because you... probably shouldn't be doing these things.
Further, any discussion of runkit should focus on individual features of it. Custom Superglobals: I consider these fairly harmless so long as developers follow strict rules about naming them, but if you want superglobals, you probably need to rethink some part of your architecture. Monkeypatching: Several good use-cases for this (unit tests, among others), but like all powerful features, must be used with care. Sandboxing: Complicated by the fact that it only works in a threaded build, can't transfer all types (e.g. resource, complex objects), and can't run concurrently. Until/unless these problems can be meaningfully solved, I wouldn't consider it a functional implementation. For my vote: I think keeping this in pecl is fine, because they're all things which can be done from the extension space. Yes, I've abandoned the package, but nothing is stopping someone else from taking it over. -Sara On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:28 PM, dukeofgaming <dukeofgam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is a great idea (the runkit, not the rootkit). > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > I think I need to get my lens prescription updated. I thought the subject > > line read, "Add *rootkit *to PHP Runtime" and was already sharpening my > > pitchfork before I realized my error. > > > > For the record, I am firmly opposed to adding a rootkit to the PHP runtime. > > A runkit sounds pretty cool, though. ;) > > > > --Kris > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
