Re: Re: ext/imagick BC break (was: Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP Magick version 0.5a Released!)

On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 02:09, George Schlossnagle wrote: > Just out of curiosity, why is it necessary to break BC? Because michael worte this imagemagick extension from scratch without knowing that mine already existed :( As I somehow abandoned my imagick project for the time being, I suggested Michael to replace my code with his, since he has a lot more feature than me. Of course the function names were not completely the same. Michael tries to introduce some functions, which keep somehow BC, but it's not everywhere possible. > In what way is > the new syntax better that it makes up for the problems incurred? I don't necesseraly think the new syntax is better, it's just a different approach and it's too hard to put BC into the existing stuff. Better make a clear cut now and warn all users, when they use the old functions. > > can you give a 2-3 line overview of the differences: > > functions have different arguments/order? > > missing functions? > > (lots of new ones I presume :) ... > > > > phpmole uses it to do resize/rotate etc. AFAIK, the main difference is, that it's not anymore imagick_copy_resize(...) but imagick_resize(...) and you have to clone the image by yourself before, if you want 2 images (this goes for all imagick_copy_* functions). But Michael can certainly say more here and will write some docu about upgrading christian