Re: Fw: [PHP-QA] Windows installer

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Richard Lynch wrote: > > I strongly doubt (and hope) this is true. I don't think too many people > > deploy PHP on Windows machines. I'd expect most of them use it for > > development purposes (I've yet to see a production Windows based PHP > > server on the net). > > http://www.emdepot.com > is another, or at least it was when I left the project :-) > > It may or may not be using .php extension, and there's nothing in the NT/IIS > server line to tell you. Perhaps that's why there's such a low visibility > of PHP on Windows. My assumption that not too many sites use PHP under Windows in production environments isn't based on surveying X servers and checking, but rather, on knowledge that PHP under Windows isn't mature enough for the task. > Whether there is or isn't a lot of Production Windows/PHP machines is one > thing -- Whether we should discourage their existence by not being flexible > on the backwards-compatibility of .php3 in a no-brainer installer is > another. > > I think marking it as "deprecated, use for backwards-compatibility" is the > right answer, IMNSHO. We're arguing about the default install here. Those who have it installed, had enough brains to install it without an installation program. I'm sure they'd manage to use the Advanced installation and enable .php3 if they wish. Simply put, I don't want to screw everyone's installations just because there may be a relatively very small number of web sites that would benefit from that. Weight the loss vs. the gain - you ensure that .php3 remains with us until the end of time, vs. you force people who have downwards compatibility issues (that would slowly fade away) to use the Advanced installation. I'm still in favour of simply marking it with 'Deprecated', and having it turned off in the default installation. Zeev -- Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> http://www.zend.com/