On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Christoph Rosse <cro...@2bepublished.at>wrote:
> why wouldn't this go into core? setting the name of the current > php-process is definitely something everyone that develops php-cli scripts > could use. > I use a lot of php-cli scripts and I've never seen the need. Without having hard data to back this up, I am pretty sure that this applies to nearly all php-cli scripts. > We should not base the decision of putting something into the core on > assumptions on how many people are going to use the feature. > Obviously we should. Whether people will use it is pretty much the most important aspect for deciding whether or not something should be added. Even a trivial addition is a loose for the project if nobody is going to use it. And this is no trivial addition. This seems to be quite a bit system dependent and uses some odd methods like overwriting argv memory. And on that note, it also has to copy the argv data if I got that right, which is something it has to do always and not just when people are actually using the feature ;) I'm not saying I'm against this feature. I'd just really appreciate it if we could drop the good old "it doesn't matter if people are going to use it" non-arguments and instead provide a bit more info for people like me, who are not in the process-title-hacking business. I.e. what this is needed for an why this is needed in core. E.g. what Arvid mentioned, that this is useful when you are running many PHP-based daemons and want to distinguish them. That's the kind of stuff I'd like to see in the RFC. Regarding core/non-core. People mentioned that this is not implementable as an extension. That can be either solved by putting it into core or by adding the necessary API hook ;) [I'm not arguing which variant is better, just saying that not being implementable with current core does not mean that we can't make it implementable :)] Thanks, Nikita
