RE: [PHP-DEV] libxml2/threading/win 2003
| From: | Andi Gutmans | Date: | Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:46:27 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] libxml2/threading/win 2003 | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-25549@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
As I said, I think we should keep status quo for now and not change the
static linking that we've done for the past few years. I thought my previous
email was clear.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Richards [mailto:rrichards@ctindustries.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:21 AM
> To: Andi Gutmans
> Cc: 'Nuno Lopes'; 'Edin Kadribasic'; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] libxml2/threading/win 2003
>
> Uh, yea I have been proposing a change (first made on 8/10,
> but had been waiting for the 4.4 and 5.1 releases to be finished).
> .oO(Would have been nice is people mentioned any
> objections/issues way back then)....
> http://news.php.net/php.internals/25300
>
> So you really think that making registry changes to support a
> dll is better than linking statically (like we currently do)
> and just adding a DllMain entry point? (we are creating a DLL
> even though we are linking
> libxml2 in statically)
> Before I would not have minded going the dll route, but not
> if it is also going to require registry settings.
>
> As Edin said, it has been working this way for years and
> there have been few to no complains/problems (other than
> having to upgrade the libxml2 library every so often in
> releases to support bug fixes). Going to dlls is placing the
> burden on the installer to make sure he does it right (always
> has been an area for problems but something I could have
> lived with). Now you want to also require maintenance of
> registry settings to support the usage of the dll?
> Are we trying to find out how difficult we can make working
> with PHP in windows be? :)
>
> Rob
>
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > OK well I definitely don't propose to change anything right now.
> > I was just struck by senility and thought you were
> discussing making a
> > chance at this point. I still believe going down the dlls route is
> > better but it does most probably require some registry
> changes to make
> > it work well with IIS. CGI is a no issue of course as the
> exe path is the prefered one.
> >
> > Andi
> >
> >
>