On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 14:12 -0400, J David wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Sara Golemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Right, gotcha. I think ideally someone should put in the grunt work to do
> > what you suggested: Build libphp5.so all the time, then link up
> > php/mod_php5.so/etc... against that as a shared system library (which in
> > turn other programs or SAPIs could link against).
> >
> > I'm not sure if anyone has the time and patience to do that (for its
> > relatively small return), but it'd get my vote.
>
> That is something I would volunteer to undertake (including RFC, etc),
> but in order to do so in a productive way, someone else would have to
> volunteer to do the Windows portion of the work. That's well beyond
> my knowledge, ability, and available development hardware. :(
>
> The big preliminary question for me would be, "Is there a specific
> design reason why it isn't currently done this way?" PHP already
> requires shlib's that depend on shlib's, so that functionality is
> probably universally available, but I can't shake the suspicion that
> maybe there is some has-to-be-supported platform or use case hiding at
> the periphery that requires static linking. (Which could
> hypothetically be addressed with a libphp5.a, but that isn't something
> I've looked into at all.)
On Windows we do this already. We have php.exe apache dlls with the SAPI
and then php5[ts].dll.
For Unix I'm not sure it is good - it makes it complex to run multiple
PHP versions next to each other which is not only relevant for
developers but also hosters offering multiple versions.
johannes