On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Matthew Charles Kavanagh wrote:
> The issue in my mind is one of portability. It would be nice, as a
> developer working in PHP, to be able to rely on functionality like
> encryption (and other unrelated goodies) being available on Joe User's
> $5/month webhost who don't go aro
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Matthew Charles Kavanagh wrote:
> Perhaps you're not seeing my point, or perhaps you don't care about
> users? I speak as a developer, not as some guy with a crap webhost, and
> my concern is that I would like to write applications that many people
> can run, not just those who
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Christian Schneider wrote:
> I'm sure if there's a major uproar about an extension being mandatory
> for the next killer application then they'll reconsider. But for now it
> seems that encryption functionality a la mcrypt hasn't been in high
> enough demand.
Even if it was, I
Christian Schneider wrote:
Matthew Charles Kavanagh wrote:
Perhaps you're not seeing my point, or perhaps you don't care about
users? I speak as a developer, not as some guy with a crap webhost, and
So according to you every single extension should be put bundled and
installed by default?
If no
Matthew Charles Kavanagh wrote:
Perhaps you're not seeing my point, or perhaps you don't care about
users? I speak as a developer, not as some guy with a crap webhost, and
So according to you every single extension should be put bundled and
installed by default?
If not, then someone has to draw
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Matthew Charles Kavanagh wrote:
The issue in my mind is one of portability. It would be nice, as a
developer working in PHP, to be able to rely on functionality like
encryption (and other unrelated goodies) being available on Joe User's
$5/month webhost who
(earlier message, sending to list)
Derick Rethans wrote:
This is definitely not planned - we rather not bundle any library, and
definitely not an LGPL library.
Reinventing the wheel by providing encryption routines in PHP does not
make sense really. PHP is meant to be a glue to provide access to
li
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Matthew Charles Kavanagh wrote:
> Derick Rethans wrote:
> > This is definitely not planned - we rather not bundle any library, and
> > definitely not an LGPL library.
> >
> > Reinventing the wheel by providing encryption routines in PHP does not
> > make sense really. PHP is me
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Mark Evans wrote:
> Since the mcrypt library is released under the GPL and php under the
> php 3.0 licence I guess the option to integrate the solutions isnt
> available so the other option would be for php to include their own
> encryption routines.
libmcrypt is LGPL, not GPL
