Re: [RFC] Extension Prepend Files
| From: | Pierre Joye | Date: | Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:43:26 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Extension Prepend Files | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-80271@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
hi,
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:14 PM, François Laupretre <francois@tekwire.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> > De : Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@gmail.com]
>> >
>> > ... here,
>> > it is proposed to bundle scripts that will be executed at runtime like
>> > any
>> > other script, except that nothing can be done with them, not even
>> > disable
>> > them if not required (like using its own glue codes).
>>
>> I agree. Bundling scripts in extensions to execute them at each RINIT is,
>> IMO, not a good idea (mostly for performance reasons and lack of control, as
>> you note), but I keep thinking that a mechanism to embed PHP scripts in
>> extensions and make them available via a common stream wrapper can be
>> useful. What I don't like is the fact to execute them automatically at every
>> RINIT. I prefer to let the extension free to load its PHP code when its
>> logic decides it is needed.
>
>
> To be honest, I don't see the use case of shipping optional PHP code inside
> an extension. As the user of an extension I want all the functions/classes
> to be available all the time, no matter if the extension developer wrote
> everything in C or in PHP.
>
> For optional code there is Composer/PEAR/php include path, this is already a
> solved problem.
So you are saying that people should be forced to use your glue code
instead of implementing their own when it fits better? I can only
disagree. But even then, it does not make the bundling of php code in
binaries a smart idea.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org