Re: tsrm_shutdown() and the CLI SAPI
| From: | Steph Fox | Date: | Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:59:27 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: tsrm_shutdown() and the CLI SAPI | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-23855@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
We were hoping to release ours...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com>
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>; "Frank M. Kromann" <frank@kromann.info>
Cc: "'internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>; "'Antony Dovgal'" <antony@zend.com>; "Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com>; "'Xuefer'" <xuefer@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] tsrm_shutdown() and the CLI SAPI
As we are not planning to release a new version within the next couple of weeks, I suggest before jumping to conclusions we take a look at it. If you really need to comment out that line in the meanwhile that's OK with me. Andi At 09:50 PM 5/31/2006, Steph Fox wrote:__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.comFrank's referring to Zeev's three-years-ago decision to simply opt out of tsrm_shutdown() here... he's suggesting we revert it.Yes, it would, given the root cause - but would you really want to break the whole of PHP for an academic exercise?It's not really an academic exercise. If we know there's a bug someplace we should at least look into it and try and understand it.Then if we decide to remove the trsm_shutdown call for a good reason (circular dependency, blah blah blah) then we can do that and put a nice fat comment on why it's the right thing to do. But I do think it's benefical to try and understand what's happening.Fine, but breaking working code while you're trying to understand what's happening is far from beneficial to our users. Can't we at least #0 it?Andi