Re: cvs: php-src /ext/xml compat.c expat_compat.h

> Ok > > there are 5 different solutions now to this problem > > 1) fix the code, so that it works with 2.5.x correctly as well > 2) make 2.6.x a prerequisite > 3) disable xml_parser_create_ns for 2.5.x > 4) use broken code for 2.5.x and fixed code for 2.6.x > 5) revert to yesterdays situation (broken for all...) > > The ideal solution would be 1), but I'd neither have the time nor am I > very keen on doing it. But if someone else wants to fix it, go ahead. > > I'd prefer 2) or 3). I use 2.6.x since weeks and I don't have any known > problems with it. And if we go for 3), anyone who needs > xml_parser_create_ns would have to upgrade to 2.6., otherwise you're > just fine with 2.5.x. As nobody reported until now, that > xml_parser_create_ns is broken since months, I don't think it's a widely > used function anyway. Therefore 4) could also be a solution, 'cause > x_p_c_ns works ok, if you're namespace declarations are not too uncommon > and if you don't use default namespaces (but if you use namespaces, then > the chances are pretty high that you also use default namespaces..). 5) > is unacceptable, IMHO. 4 for the short-term, 1 for the long-term. I'll fix it, but I don't have time atm. -Sterling > > What do you think? > > chregu > > > On 2/22/04 8:10 PM, Rob Richards wrote: > >On Sunday 22 February 2004 01:36 pm, Sterling Hughes wrote: > > > >>>Mmmh > >>> > >>>too bad, will try to find a solution for libxml2 < 2.6 > >>> > >>>I know, it's late in the release process, but the "old" > >>>implementation > >>>didn't recognise default namespaces, which broke quite some ext/xml > >>>scripts from php4 days and I'd like to have fixed that before 5.0.0 > >> > >>In the meantime either add #ifdef configure checks or revert it out. > >>Recognizing default namespaces shouldn't be hard to hack in to the code > >>that was there, it just requires a bit of a rethink, and I believe we're > >>set on supporting libxml2.5, right? > > > > > >I personally would like to keep support for libxml 2.5, just because we > >know it works correctly and stable with the xml extensions and I for one > >have had little time to extensively test the xml extensions against 2.6.x. > >Other than that, I have no other reasons for supporting 2.5 > > > >However, I believe the namespace support for SAX wasn't introduced or at > >least wasn't fixed up until 2.6 so the issue may not be able to be fixed > >without requiring 2.6 > > > >That being said, if everyone really wants to require 2.6 I would be fine > >with it, but we may possibly be introducing new problems and will not be > >able to fall back to 2.5. From what I have heard from people running 2.6.x > >have reported, there have been no problems so far, but not sure how > >heavily they tested everything. > > > >Rob > > -- > christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich > phone +41 1 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71 > http://www.bitflux.ch | chregu@bitflux.ch | gnupg-keyid > 0x5CE1DECB >