On 07/02/17 08:53, Rowan Collins wrote: >> I think the Sodium RFC vote is not about namespace but rather about >> breaking everything which already use the pecl extension. > Well, it's about both, that's why it's a hard question: in order not to break > existing use of the extension, we need to break existing conventions by > adding a namespace to core. > > I agree with Richard that this should be decided as a general policy, rather > than a special exemption for this one extension, and then a fresh debate next > time, and next...
Once again it's about the distribution process rather than anything fundamental to how php works? The 'linux' project PHP package is probably the only distribution that 'bundles' a set of extensions in the one package, as even the windows package allows individual extension selection. Does any linux distribution actually use the php 'convention'? They all allow a different basic bundle using different styles of control and manage all of the extensions separately. The rfc is ... I want libsodium available on all php distributions! That is simply not going to happen, and those distributions which have already added namespace will follow one path, while the others will continue to offer the current package as a 'non-namespaced' addition to their core install as any other optional extension. There should be a list of core functionality which everyone can 'rely' on, and libsodium may have a place in that list, but equally users need to be aware that it may not be present and act accordingly. -- 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
