Re: Re: cvs: php4 /ext/sablot php_sablot.h

At 09:18 AM 8/10/2001 -0500, Andrei Zmievski wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Is this really what the goal is here? It seems like a contest to see how many times "Zend" can appear in the code. I think some of this stuff should be PHP_ or for things that really are engine related, perhaps ENGINE_ to at least pretend that this is a modular architecture where if someone was brave enough they could try to use the modularity and plug in another engine. However, if everyone on php-dev thinks the above look to a PHP extension is just fine, I'll stop bickering. Nope, this renaming stuff doesn't sit well with me either.

I really don't think this whole thing is such a big deal either way. I could live with it both ways. I just think it's ridiculous how you guys are paranoid about the issue. I think duplicating these macros isn't a great thing because from a software design point of view it's yet another place to change. As they are Zend Engine services it makes sense to have the macros in the Zend Engine. We could give them another argument of "prefix" where we could specify "zend" in the Zend Engine and "php" for PHP but it'd probably would be much less user friendly in that case. And yes, obviously the scripting engine and PHP are tightly coupled. You can't expect much less than that. I haven't seen any software where a program built around a certain framework wasn't tightly coupled with the framework. It wouldn't bother anyone if there weren't paranoia such as Rasmus'. Anyway, as I said it's not a big deal so I just suggest everyone relaxes a bit and doesn't look for problems where there aren't any. It's just a string. Andi