Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-29 Thread Hartmut Holzgraefe
Wez Furlong wrote: It'd be good to have Hartmut's view on that, since he wrote both those systems. I suspect that Hartmut will want to keep at least one of them around in the core. *DISCLAIMER* I did *not* write ext_skel, i tried to maintain it for a short while but gave up on that pretty so

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-28 Thread Steph Fox
Hi Wez, > I can't see any negative points to keeping ext/skeleton in the tree. I can't see any positive ones :) That's because you don't use it. I use ext_skel a lot. I'm fairly sure that most extension authors also start with ext_skel. Yes, and strangely enough that does include me. I t

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-26 Thread Derick Rethans
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Wez Furlong wrote: > The problem with moving ext/skeleton is that we'll end up shipping PHP > without an extension template of any kind. Almost every single PHP > book that talks about writing extensions uses ext_skel to do so. > > Giving PECL_gen some good press is a differ

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-26 Thread Wez Furlong
On 4/25/06, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since when have existing books been a reason not to change something? Given the lack of documentation on this topic and the fact that ext_skel and ext/skeleton are pretty much just plain text, I think it's a pretty damned good reason. > > I can't

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-26 Thread Steph Fox
I can't see any negative points to keeping ext/skeleton in the tree. I can't see any positive ones :) It provides a basic template for making new extensions without having to go searching through PECL, this is a big + IMHO. OK, fair enough. Is anyone going to answer the rather more impor

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-26 Thread Ilia Alshanetsky
On 25-Apr-06, at 12:35 PM, Steph Fox wrote: Hi Wez, The problem with moving ext/skeleton is that we'll end up shipping PHP without an extension template of any kind. Almost every single PHP book that talks about writing extensions uses ext_skel to do so. Since when have existing books be

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-25 Thread Andrey Hristov
Hi Steph, Steph Fox wrote: Hi Wez, The problem with moving ext/skeleton is that we'll end up shipping PHP without an extension template of any kind. Almost every single PHP book that talks about writing extensions uses ext_skel to do so. Since when have existing books been a reason not to

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-25 Thread Steph Fox
Hi Wez, The problem with moving ext/skeleton is that we'll end up shipping PHP without an extension template of any kind. Almost every single PHP book that talks about writing extensions uses ext_skel to do so. Since when have existing books been a reason not to change something? Giving PEC

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-25 Thread Wez Furlong
The problem with moving ext/skeleton is that we'll end up shipping PHP without an extension template of any kind. Almost every single PHP book that talks about writing extensions uses ext_skel to do so. Giving PECL_gen some good press is a different issue, and does not require that we move ext/sk

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-25 Thread Steph Fox
ext/skeleton is a different beast and I suspect that 99.99% users have never heard of it. You mean you only want to move things people have heard of?! I mean I only want to move things which I consider unsafe. It's safe to include ext/skeleton as you definitely know what you're doing when you

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-25 Thread Antony Dovgal
On 25.04.2006 13:20, Steph Fox wrote: On 25.04.2006 11:27, Steph Fox wrote: I'd add ext/skeleton to that list. Hartmut's PECL_gen project is way ahead of it, actively supported and very easy to get hold of... and Hartmut gives it a at every opportunity :) ext/skeleton is a different beast an

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-25 Thread Mike Bretz
Can we add a notice into the configure script in 5.x when using these extensions and move them into PECL for 6.0? A hint in 5.x will inform the few people who are using the extensions that they will find them in PECL in future. Maybe current configure options like "--with-hwapi" will be kept an

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-25 Thread Antony Dovgal
On 25.04.2006 11:27, Steph Fox wrote: I'd add ext/skeleton to that list. Hartmut's PECL_gen project is way ahead of it, actively supported and very easy to get hold of... and Hartmut gives it a at every opportunity :) ext/skeleton is a different beast and I suspect that 99.99% users have neve

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-24 Thread Steph Fox
I'd add ext/skeleton to that list. Hartmut's PECL_gen project is way ahead of it, actively supported and very easy to get hold of... and Hartmut gives it a at every opportunity :) - Steph Hello all. I'd like to propose yet another bunch of extensions to be moved from core to PECL. (Don't

Re: [PHP-DEV] more candidates for PECL

2006-04-24 Thread Richard Lynch
On Mon, April 24, 2006 4:47 pm, Antony Dovgal wrote: > I'd like to propose yet another bunch of extensions to be moved from > core to PECL. > (Don't worry, this is for 5.2 and HEAD. 5.1 is untouchable atm). This naive reader thinks it should be targeted at 6.0 release, as it seems like pretty majo