On 23/01/15 08:27, Michael Wallner wrote: > Well, I’m not the one to tell you that :) If I didn’t find it useful, I > wouldn’t have built it. > Don’t hesitate, if there are questions about what they conceptually are > trying to accomplish. > > I think a short discussion about where to put the dependant code and noting > the outcome in the RFC could be the way to go. I guess just a few people who > think that pecl_http is about to be included would suffice.
I started using PHP one windows, and so have always viewed it as a smaller core and a series of modules. SUSE continues that model and I see no reason to change now, so in my book it is the the current bundling and enabling by default that has always been the wrong approach. I simply enable the elements I need and leave out all the other stuff which I don't. So the debate should be if other 'dependant code' exists. A large section of the ini file relates to modules which may well not be enabled so that gets deleted and moved to the relevant sub.ini . You are already talking about pushing php_interbase and other extensions into pecl, so they can be ignored but we got agreement a long time ago that no one database would be enabled by default, so all should be easily available. I would probably add that for a long time now I think most distributions have bundled mysql and mysqli in the one package, so the idea of removing mysql may not be so easy to achieve. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
