Re: cvs: php4 /ext/sablot sablot.c
| From: | Thies C. Arntzen | Date: | Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:47:18 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: cvs: php4 /ext/sablot sablot.c | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.cvs |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-cvs+get-6712@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 04:58:25PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Thies,
>
> You got it wrong. The engine provides services, on which modules are
> built. The data types, functions, etc. are all defined in the engine,
> using engine macros and names. PHP is one application that can be built on
> top of the engine, there are others. Obviously, the names to use are those
> of the engine, not PHP's.
> I'm changing the names so that they have different prefixes, but they'll
> all be defined in the engine, which is the right thing to do from a
> software development point of view.
lets just rename PHP to Zend!
thanx for listening:-(
tc
>
> Zeev
>
> At 16:55 10-08-01, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 04:40:42PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >> At 16:30 10-08-01, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >> >On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 01:04:59PM -0000, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >> >> zeev Fri Aug 10 09:04:59 2001 EDT
> >> >>
> >> >> Modified files:
> >> >> /php4/ext/sablot sablot.c
> >> >> Log:
> >> >> More build fixes
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Index: php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c
> >> >> diff -u php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c:1.50 php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c:1.51
> >> >> --- php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c:1.50 Fri Aug 10 08:28:15 2001
> >> >> +++ php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c Fri Aug 10 09:04:58 2001
> >> >> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@
> >> >> ZEND_GET_MODULE(sablot)
> >> >> #endif
> >> >>
> >> >> -static void php_sablot_init_globals(php_sablot_globals
> >*sablot_globals)
> >> >> +static void php_sablot_init_globals(zend_sablot_globals
> >> >*sablot_globals TSRMLS_DC)
> >> >> {
> >> >> sablot_globals->processor = NULL;
> >> >> sablot_globals->errors = NULL;
> >> >> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@
> >> >> PHP_MINIT_FUNCTION(sablot)
> >> >> {
> >> >> #ifdef ZTS
> >> >> - ts_allocate_id(&sablot_globals_id, sizeof(php_sablot_globals),
> >> >(ts_allocate_ctor)php_sablot_init_globals, NULL);
> >> >> + ts_allocate_id(&sablot_globals_id, sizeof(zend_sablot_globals),
> >> >(ts_allocate_ctor)php_sablot_init_globals, NULL);
> >> >
> >> > i'd really like to keep the extension function/variables etc
> >> > in the php* namespace, i use completion in gdb quite often,
> >> > and by mixing zend_ prefixed variables into php space it
> >> > doesn't make this easier.
> >> >
> >> > i do not think there is any pressing reason to prefix
> >> > php-extension globals with zend_ instead of php_.
> >> >
> >> > lets keep the namespaces separate!
> >>
> >> Thies,
> >>
> >> Read my responses to Rasmus. The reason there was a mix was the
> >redundant
> >> definitions in php.h. The reason for my fix was to eliminate this
> >> long-going mix. I don't see how it has any effect on gdb debugging,
> >other
> >> than being more consistent (not having to look for two types of symbols,
> >> just one). As you may know, I also debug using gdb, more often than I
> >care
> >> to...
> >>
> >> Does the fact that internal function implementations have the same prefix
> >> as the engine functions bother you? If that's the case, we can use a
> >> different prefix, but we should have just one set of macros either way.
> >
> > we're only talking namespaces here: yes, i'd like to have
> > seperated namespaces for as many modular parts of php as we
> > can have. this is INHO simply GoodDesign(tm).
> >
> > prefixing everything the same way makes prefixed completely
> > unnecessary - which would be also an option:
> >
> > right now your approach another idea
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > php_sablot_globals zend_sablot_globals sablot_globals
> > zend_hash_update zend_hash_update hash_update
> >
> > 1 makes sense (everything in Zend/ is prefixed zend_
> > everything in TSRM/ tsrm_ and the rest is prefixed php_).
> >
> > option 2 is a waste of characters which doesn't gain us
> > anything except namespace protection, but then we could as
> > well prefix everything with thies_;-)
> >
> > option 3 seems the clearest from an SE view of things, but
> > that would "undermine" the seperation of the Engine and PHP.
> >
> > i personally like 3 the most - but for various reasons lets
> > stick with 1.
> >
> > re,
> > tc
>
> --
> Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
> CTO & co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd.
> http://www.zend.com/
>