Re: serialize_binary => pecl

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:28 +0200 Hartmut Holzgraefe <hartmut@php.net> wrote: > Antony Dovgal wrote: > > Maybe bserialize would be better? > > Imo serialize_binary is too long and too hard to > > type/remember. > > The "serialize_binary" was my suggestion for the package name > and for the internal prefixes of the C functions. > This way we can have a group of serialze extensions (moving > ext/wddx to pecl/serialize_wddx comes to mind) > The userlevel functions could still be serialize_binary() > and serialize_unbinary() IMHO. I meant bserialize only for extension, function names should stay (un)serialize_*(), as this complies with our naming standards. > Or maybe we could even come up with a more general serialization > interface that only has > > string serialize(mixed value [, string handler]) > > and > > mixed unserialize(string str, [, string handler]) Yup, this and Wez's idea about pluggable serializers are very useful IMO, as it could speed up many applications. --- WBR, Antony Dovgal aka tony2001 tony2001@phpclub.net || antony@dovgal.com