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

Michael Montero wrote:

Just so we're not discussing a lot of issues on the wishlist, what do people really think? A lot of effort has gone into the current module and it seems very near a good, stable point. However, I would invest the time rewriting it if everyone felt that was _necessary_ for a better first release. A few questions: 1) how difficult is it to provide both? In other words, can we write the OO version next and then phase out support for the non-OO version? That has the issue of breaking bc. You could always support both. Adding the OO support is really really simple though - not really a rewrite at all, more like an application of a bit of glue. I defintely was not trying to create a lot of work for you, just throwing it out as an idea that might be embraced since BC was being broken anyway.

2) are the savings/advantages so great that it's worth saying this version was just a fun experiment to make sure it can be done and now let's write it OO and release? Well, I would say that everything has to start somewhere. The advantage of doing it in a module that is about to break BC is that you have an incredible opportunity to rework the interface without worrying about how people were using it before.

I've gotten a lot of feedback from people that are hungry for something yesterday. I know I am. I believe this module is in great shape and can provide the functionality these users need. In fact, I intend to deploy this in production in the next week (probably after holidays) once the image list support is done. If I add in the OO support before this weekend, would you consider it?

I defer to the list. Again, PEAR is a pretty open place, and this is hardly a standard (I think it should be, but Im just one guy). You should defer to the list and do what your heart tells you. If you;'re interested in this support and it's just a time issue, I'll be happy to help. If you really don't buy into the whole idea, or think it's just not the way you want to do it, that's cool too.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, George Schlossnagle wrote:

I should probably make Michael num 2, and you number 3. I will change the (currently purely procedural) spread interface to be oo. Some decent (though lengthy) examples are also in sapi/apache_hooks/php_apache.c (in HEAD), where the apache request functions are implemented as methods. Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:00:32 -0500 George Schlossnagle <george@omniti.com> wrote:

Sorry to make you the first victim of my new crusade.... :)

I ll be proud to be the 2nd :-). Do you have some nice commented sources available ? I currently starting 2 new extensions and really think about it too, but came back to classic function. pierre