Re: [PHP4BETA] SAPI

Zeev Suraski wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > I still don't understand your logic here. If SAPI can cover ISAPI, NSAPI, > > Apache API, WebSite and perhaps Roxen, then we have 95% perhaps of the > > servers on the Net covered. I don't see what COM has to do with this. > > SAPI would be something that a software developer looking to make his > > module portable would look at. If he built his module exclusively as a > > COM object, then he obviously doesn't care about portability and as such > > SAPI is irrelevant to him, and that is perfectly fine. > > Well, I'm not saying it's useless. I'm just saying it has less potential > than I originally thought. My point is this - if you ask Microsoft how to > develop an extension for IIS, they would point you towards COM interfaces > that you have to implement. There are Visual C++ wizards to help you do > that, there's ATL, and there are a zillion other things that drag you in > that direction, instead of ISAPI. What I'm saying is that, unlike I > originally thought, using our library *is* going to have serious > drawbacks - it won't be just a matter of getting used to a slightly > different API and gaining platform independence, it would actually mean > giving up a lot of functionality and ease. This would make this library > much less attractive to the average Win32 programmer. > > It doesn't come to say that this library isn't useful, just that it's not > as useful as I thought it would be. I think it can be summarized like this: those who let themselves be had by Microsoft will find very few non-Microsoft libraries useful. This is Microsoft's way of doing business. For the rest, and especially those who still use UNIX as their server platform, SAPI will be of great use. It's a bit early to say whether it will have world dominion though. That really depends on how well it catches on among server/module developers. - Stig -- PHP 4 Beta