Re: Fw: New extension update

Not a problem. The list has definitely given me a lot of things to think about that I didn't think of before. I will apply for a PECL account, but I also think I am going to try to make a PEAR version after the PECL version is set. I like the idea of a module-based version of this extension, but the PEAR version seems to be a very reasonable suggestion from a universal compatibility standpoint. Thanks for all your help. On 9/5/05, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote: > Didn't mean for that to come out like a bar-to-entry. By all means, join > the party... > > Just wanted to be sure you gave all consideration to your options. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Teixeira" <ateixeira@gmail.com> > Newsgroups: php.pecl.dev > To: "Sara Golemon" <pollita@php.net>; <pecl-dev@lists.php.net> > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 12:17 PM > Subject: Re: New extension update > > > The reason I originally decided to make it a PHP module instead of a > PEAR class is because I was going to do basic C calls and use the RPM > library. In changing to a completely fread/fseek design without using > librpm, I could probably adapt this into a PEAR class. However, the > main reason I switched from my very first attempt to get RPM data was > for speed. I figured that the PHP module route would be much faster > than anything I could do in PHP code due to the fact that it was > pre-compiled, directly accessing files, etc. I would still like to > provide it as a PECL package for those who might want to use it since > I have already spent some time getting it working. Therefore, if it > is allowable, I would still like to post the code once I have it > working. I might also adapt it to a PEAR class later on to see if > there is any performance difference. Let me know your thoughts. > Thanks. > > On 9/4/05, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote: > > There's no harm is getting the account application in now, though you'll > > want to post your code for initial review before your account can be > > approved. > > > > On a separate note, I want to ask again whether PECL is the right place > > for > > this module given that it amounts to a series of fread()/fseek() calls and > > formatting the data for end-user consumption. The advantage of a PEAR > > class > > is that it can more readily be used by end users particularly those on > > shared hosting providers where making a PECL class available for loading > > can > > be difficult at best. > > > > Of course, perhaps you're just looking for an exercise as much as > > anything. > > Though if that's your purpose I'd actually recommend going the librpm > > route > > then publishing it outside of php.net perhaps through sourceforge. (Not > > that I've always practiced what I preached in the past). > > > > -Sara > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andrew Teixeira" <ateixeira@gmail.com> > > Newsgroups: php.pecl.dev > > To: <pecl-dev@lists.php.net> > > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 6:21 AM > > Subject: New extension update > > > > > > Hello, > > I have done a good deal of work on the extension I proposed a week > > or so back. This was the extension that would read RPM files' headers > > and provide PHP functions to access the tags therein. I have since > > done away with the librpm (RPM's API) libraries and headers and have > > instead done it the "long way" by actually reading the bytes from the > > file to access the headers. This was all due to GPL licensing on the > > header files and libraries. I have not created the module yet, but > > have written the same functionality in a C program which should > > translate easily to a PECL module. Should I apply online for a PECL > > account at this point? > > > > I will hopefully have a working PECL module for this in another > > week or so that (I hope) will be free from licensing restrictions that > > have caused problems when I first suggested it. Please let me know > > your comments. Thanks. > > > > > >