Re: Linking and autoloading of dependent extensions

On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 17:30 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote: > Well, ok... so that's absolutely not the problem I'm trying to solve. > You can still load that stubbornly named extensions manually and > nothing will complain, even if something has a dependency on it. > > > I'm about e.g. pecl install & going ahead without reordering extension > entries... The issue is this can pull in the wrong extension giving the user a hard time to understand how and why that happens. And I don't think this will solve the "pecl install & going ahead" wish - what should "pecl install" do? - Add new extensions to the end of the file? So it will be loaded two times? I think the solution is more in the loading and startup logic. I think we should only load explicitly mentioned extensions (or alternatively *all* extension in extension dir, while that has issues, too, think i.e. Windows where we distribute a bunch of dlls which require some 3rd party libs in proper places), then analyze the dependencies, order the startup call accordingly and start them up. (this all won't solve issues where lazy linking doesn't work and we need system level symbols from other extensions, though ... but I think systems without working RTLD_LAZY are rare these days) johannes

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part signature.asc