Re: xml and libxml versions

FWIW, that's one of the key reasons I think we should default to use the bundled libxml, and only use the system library if the user explicitly requested that. I think we're going to bundle libxml in beta1 to see how well this concept works. Zeev At 15:25 26/06/2003, Rob Richards wrote:

Will there be an "official" supported version of libxml now that there are many xml extensions using it? One issue that came up with the old domxml extension was that occasionally new versions of libxml would "fix" things which ended up changing behavior of the extension. With more extensions it could be more difficult to determine exactly what is a bug and what is due to code changes in libxml, as well as that some extensions may be affected by the changes and some may not. Under win32 for instance, in order to use a stock libxml2.dll, it must be version 2.5.x (not sure the exact start version) otherwise the symbols simplexml need are unavailable and would need libxml compiled in statically. Having at least one version defined as compatible would make it much easier for testing and debugging across all the extensions while other libxml versions could be run at your own risk. Rob -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php