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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
