I never said it's not possible, I always said that it's going to be inefficient and less stable in MT. Of course I have no plans to implement it, but I also don't think it should be implemented at all; It requires far reaching changes to the infrastructure which would destabilize the MT version of PHP, and make it less efficient. You can give it a try of course, I'm just warning you in advance :)
I don't see why you call preloading from php.ini or registry or autoloading 'half solutions'. It works fine for IIS, Apache and plenty of other applications I came across. Of course Perl supports it, so what? It made a shift from a command line tool that was virtually based on loading modules, it had to. We don't. Zeev At 02:08 16/03/2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote: >On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 22:08, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > At 21:36 13/03/2002, Shane Caraveo wrote: > > > > I thought we weren't wasting any more time with this? :) > > > > > >Yeah, I'm getting realy tired of having to argue for something that should > > >be a base part of the language. > > > > Kodus on the tactics :) > >I understand Shane's point of view very well here. PHP _needs_ a way of >loading modules at runtime, not some half-solution like preloading from >php.ini or directories where everything is preloaded. I had given up on >this one until Shane popped out of the woodwork. > >What I don't understand is your insisting on that dynamically loading >extensions at runtime in PHP is not possible, when it is possible in for >example Perl running as a MT server plugin. It just doesn't make >sense. If you don't have enough interest in runtime loading to find >time to implement it, that's fine, but please say so instead of fighting >the whole idea. Both Shane and I have enough interst to make an effort. > > - Stig -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
