On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Martin Scotta <martinsco...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Martin Scotta > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney > > <weierophin...@php.net> wrote: > > > > > My point is that perhaps PHP has missed the boat a bit by moving > > > everything into extensions. Perhaps if an extension is particularly > > > popular, it should be incorporated into core. But let USAGE drive that, > > > not the opinions of individuals on @internals. > > > > > > I cannot disagree than with this statement. PHP is one of the language > > with the most connectivity solutions, fast adoption of new > > technologies, etc. Why? Because the language itself is relatively > > stable while its extensions are created every day for every possible > > use. > > > > However it seems that you forgot to consider what I said here a couple > > of times already. Having one nosql extension in core won't make > > hosters make the respective server side infrastructure available. How > > many hosters provide firebird? DB2? Only sqlserver is part of the > > standard windows offers but that's due to some different factors. > > > > That's why we should differentiate general purposes extensions like > > pecl's http and driver like mongo. > > > > so why mysql ext is int core? it's as specific as mongo, isn't? > > It'd be very nice if some extension could be enabled just by dropping the > "extension file" on the path. > So developers can check what they have using phpinfo, and then upload the > needed extension using ftp. Is it possible? > > that would be very bad from the security pov. including an extension should be always explicit. Tyrael
