On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, John Coggeshall wrote: > > Why is BC a concern??? If the service doesn't exist, there isn't anyone > who can still be using the service.. Hence, everybody who might have > used the extension in the past simply cannot anymore. If you really want > to leave a thing in the CyberCash manual page saying "Sorry, this > service is no longer available" that's fine... However what's the point > of cluttering up the manual with an extension that doesn't exist anymore > at all, and the service for which it was designed discountined?? > > I think in this case rm -r reference/cybercash isn't out of line. The > extension itself is completely useless without the service it was > designed to use.
I hear people say Cybercash is dead yet I also hear people say they still use it. So how sure are you that it doesn't work anymore? Is this based on experience? From a note in a CyberCash article on phpbuilder: 07/19/02 13:04 http://www.phpbuilder.com/annotate/message.php3?id=1012425 [quote] Our client is STILL using CyberCash, through it's new owner "Verisign". Verisign still supports the product and has documentation on it in the client's "Manager" area. I spoke with a sales person today, and they said we can continue to use it. (we are changing hosting providers). Thank you Verisign! For not making us update all of our old code and software. XOXOXOXXO [/quote] That makes be feel like it still exists. But anyway, Cybercash is just one example, one extension, the same logic should be applied to it as to all the other ones that get removed. So until we figure out how to deal with all of them in a consistent useful creative manner then I see zero reason to touch it. Yet. BC is always a concern, broken links are not good. Ever. I think that the removed extensions docs should remain somewhere, how about we create a new module or directory for them all. They would be excluded from the normal manual build and survive for BC and historical reasons. Anyway, I'll try to put my ideas for this whole thing in a RFC later when I get time and would like this discussion to continue. Regards, Philip > >Regarding PEAR, it's not really the answer either > >as it's not where removed extensions go. It is > >where _some_ PECL extensions go though but keep > >in mind that one day about ALL extensions will be > >PECL, so this topic is touchy as we have: > > > > a) All extensions will be PECL > > b) Most will still be distributed in main tarball > > c) Do we keep all of (b) in PHP manual, and > > the rest in PEAR manual? I think so. > > d) Nobody yet knows for sure how all this will > > be done. Like, what will be (re)moved from > > php4 source in the future. > > > >But that's another topic :) > > > >Sure I hear cybercash is no longer in service but this > >is just one example. For example we should treat it > >like we do other deprecated extensions, like aspell > >and icap (although even those two are treated > >differently) I made a huge email here but it was > >so large and contained many topics that it got lost, > >was sent to php-dev, etc. see: > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=phpdoc&m=103856748014419 > > > >It outlines many ideas on how to deal with this topic. > >Goba later asked for an RFC to be made on the topic: > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=phpdoc&m=103926520106112 > > > >Friedhelm started one at: > > > > phpdoc/RFC/moved_extensions > > > >And that's where we're at. I'll add to the RFC later > >today, more comments welcome. > > > >Regards, > >Philip > > > >p.s. I responded to the top of this email specifically > >for Derick :) > > > > > > > >On 31 Dec 2002, James Cox wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 11:00, John Coggeshall wrote: > >> > I was just looking through the CVS tree: > >> > > >> > http://cvs.php.net/cvs.php/php4/ext/cybercash > >> > > >> > And I noticed that the cybercash extension apparently > >simply doesn't > >> > exist anymore. It looks like the service itself has disappeared > >> > (actually been baught out) hence, no need for an extension. > >> > > >> > I don't have access to my tree, can someone confirm what I have > >> > found and remove the documentation for the extension? I see > >> > absolutely no reason why we should keep the documentation > >at all, as > >> > anybody who was using the extension simply can't anymore if the > >> > service simply doesn't exist. > >> > > >> I think we could remove the documentation from the main tree > >and place > >> it into the pear documentation. We need to look at a general way for > >> providing "bc" for cases like this so links don't end up broken. > >> > >> -- james -- PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
