Re: Interest in a "null" SAPI for embedding?

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Johannes Schlüter <johannes@schlueters.de> wrote: > Ah, there's another thing to mind: Extensions can be marked as "cli > extensions", if statically compiled they become only part of the CLI > binary, not other SAPIs. Think readline & pcntl. The logical expectation then would be not to include them in the shlib build, as that is not the CLI binary. Of course nothing would prevent making them part of a CLI binary that links to the shlib. But definitely, in any case where statically-linked anything is the goal, using an option that builds almost all the code into a shared library may cause an endless and entertaining variety of problems and conflicts. The solution for such cases would appear to be fairly straightforward: do not use that option in those cases where it produces a non-viable result. Thanks!