Re: Re: PHP 5.1: Does it still require ext/xmlrpc for pear?

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 13:23 +0200, Steph wrote: > It's the 'given that it doesn't appear to have an active maintainer' part > that's important here. It takes a little TLC to make a PECL package > available for download. I'll roll the PECL package myself. > > > I'm well aware of ext/xmlrpc's limitations, haven't tried the new (but > > > necessary) pecl/xmlrpci yet, and have the tiny issue that a bunch of my > > > scripts will need a complete rewrite if the old extension is simply > taken > > > away from PHP 5 up. I suspect I'm far from being alone in that - do we > have > > > figures for core extension usage, anyone? > > > > Well considering we've done it already with a number of extensions, I > > don't see a big issue. Note also that I'm not hugely concerned with > > *when* this happens (read: What version of PHP the change is made). > > Although there could be a bunch of compat functions to emulate the old > > xmlrpc behavior,I'm against it simply because there is nothing stopping > > someone from having both extensions loaded. > > That's fair enough, so long as the older version is readily available. It > becomes a problem if it isn't. The word 'replace' kind of intimates that > the original extension is effectively a goner - and if you meant 'replace in > the core', I'm unaware of a precedent for that. Yes. Cheers, John