RE: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php4 /ext/qtdom qtdom.c qtdom.h

> -----Original Message----- > From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:sascha@schumann.cx] > Sent: 17 November 2000 12:59 > To: Sterling Hughes > Cc: Andi Gutmans; Uwe Steinmann; Jan Borsodi; php-cvs@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php4 /ext/qtdom qtdom.c qtdom.h > > > > Ok. ´That's fine with me. The extension doesn't hurt me if > its included, > > I just disagree with the principal. Just as a note, it really doesn't > > offer a different interface. Its pretty much the same > interface, its just > > the difference between calling xmldoc() and qdom_tree(). > > There is precedence for this scenario. This is pretty much > Darwinism, where the better extension will survive. Users > will always prefer the solution which works better for them. > They will provide more feedback for that extension, so this > extension will improve more rapidly, increasing the lead over > the other one. It is not really up to us to decide. Let the > users decide. > There seems to be a lot of new extensions recently, none of which are really documented or with test scripts. Perhaps the people writing the extensions could provide some test scripts to show the extension in action. Its not my idea of fun spending an evening trawling through the source code of an extension trying to figure out what its doing so that we can test it works (The QA Team). I think we should try and get some of these modules tested before they are included in releases. Just an idea to get more testing of the code base and hopefully make it more reliable. Coming back to another discussion on php-dev perhaps modules should be marked as experimental until they have been tested like this. James