On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Laruence <larue...@php.net> wrote: > Hey: > > First of all, I don't want to make *that* thead longer... > > as you can see, some devers says critically phpng is lacking of > document, and they make that as the main reason for them to against > phpng. > > I have to say, in my opinion it's totally ridiculous. > > 1. how many devers in here really knows zend engine? how many > tried to know it? > I assume a little, as you can see, only a few activate zend > engine maintainers now. dmitry is the most experience one. > > 2. does PHP really has had a good API document? > > no, when I first tried to write a extension, I found no > documents, or they was far beyond outdate, I event don't know how > config.m4 works.. > > I learn PHP by reading the codes, and the example under ext/* > > 3. is document really important for PHPng? > > I don't think so, PHP can always read the codes, PHP is > opensource , it is not *MS* who need document to tell people what it > did in dark. > > 4. is PHPng API became more ugly? or harder to maintainable? > > I feel really bad to see somebody said such things... > > first of all. ugly, maintainable. it is too too subjective, > and to be honest, it's obviously biased attitude. > > second, I , the main author of PHPNG, and Nikita, Dmitry, > are the most activate internal contributors now. so you are saying we > are writing ugly codes? I really can not agree with that. > > actually, the zend_hash API become more clear, and beatifuy > than before. > > maintainable? who is the main force to maintain the PHP > internal now? yes, the authors of PHPNG.. > > I think I have the more rights to say whether it is more > maintainer able or not. > > and it's become more maintainable, because of more clean API > and more reasonable logics. > > 5. are we going to write docs? > > yes, for people, who in love with PHP, who want to make PHP > extensions, we are glad to write some APIs (which will be enough in a > dever eye). > > actually we already doing it: https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading > > 6. is PHPng really faster? > > yes, from my own test, it get more than 80% qps improvement in > wordpress than php-5.6 . for those big PHP users, that means they can > save lots of money. > > I see no reason to not have such a great change. anyone who > tried to block such a amazing feature merge into PHP, is doing crime > for PHP. > > I am not a native english speaker, so maybe I confused you in > some words , sorry for that. > > I really hope the people in this group, the people who loves PHP, > the people who want PHP become more popular here. stop less reasonable > arguing, let's together to make this biggest change merge into PHP, > make PHP users more easy life.. > > If you think we need write doc, let us write it. > > If you think we need more clean APIs? please tell me what style is > more clean, we can disccuss it, refactor it. > > If you meet problems when you try to upgrade you extension from PHP > to PHPng, let's add more info into the doc, or I can do some part of > your work for you. as I have almost refactor all the extensions under > ext/ > > and what do you want else? > > please, just, please, stop the worthless talking, I really don't > want to see such useless words anymore.. > > > thanks > > -- > Laruence Xinchen Hui > http://www.laruence.com/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Hi Laruence,
I do think that some people simply doesn't like phpng (for reasons mostly not on technical grounds), and they are bringing up any issue which can hinder the acceptance of phpng. But I also think that documentation is important, and the reasoning that it isn't based on the fact that the current engine is also lacked/lacking proper documentation is wrong imo. There are a bunch of extensions whose authors already figured out the current internals on their own (but stuff like Sara's book helped a bunch imo) to make their extension work, but we shouldn't force them yet again to learn from reading through the source yet again. Also, the less documentation we have, the more likely that the voters won't really base their vote on the actual diff, but they beliefs/pre-conceptions about phpng. As both sides (supporters of phpng and those who are against it) are really "loud" to have their arguments heard, I think it would be better for everybody if we could have as many voters as possible voting on the actual content instead of who has the bigger follower/supporter group. And as you mentioned, not that many people are familiar with the Zend internals, but the vote is open for any contributors (which we had a few rounds of discussion, but it is unlikely to be changed before this goes into voting), I think it is even more important to make it possible for the less Zend-savy people to make an educated decision about the patch. I really like the current progress on https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading , and I support your idea of having more people, even outside of the phpng devs contributing to the docs. (I added a link to the upgrading guide for the rfc page as I've noticed that some people wasn't even aware of the existence of the upgrading docs) I don't think that phpng requires any better or more detailed rfc or docs than any other similar rfc, but I do think that improving those will improve the "quality" of the votes, and maybe it will calm down some loud people seemingly being really frustrated by the lack of documentation. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
