Everything

php

RE: libxml/libxslt on win32

php.internals

Frank M. Kromann

22 years ago

Thats true, but php-gtk uses iconv too and I can see php with iconv
build-in and libxml and php-gtk compiled as shared objects so you can use
gtk without libxml and without iconv.dll.

- Frank

> Won't this become a chicken-and-worm situation?  The reason the iconv
> exports were put there in the first place was so that the libxml build

could

> rely with confidence on there being built-in support for libxml's own
> built-in iconv functions through PHP, rather than having to lean on an
> external iconv.dll at runtime..
>
> - Steph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank M. Kromann [mailto:frank@kromann.info]
> > Sent: 19 July 2004 23:32
> > To: Rob Richards
> > Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] libxml/libxslt on win32
> >
> >
> > I've been using these libraries for a while without problems.
> >
> > Can we split the iconv related exports from php_libxml.def to
> > php_iconv.def. This will make it possible to build with iconv, but

without

> > libxml.
> >
> > - Frank
> >
> > > If possible can the libxml and libxslt libs get updated to newer
> > versions?
> > > Libs can be found here: http://ctindustries.net/dom/libxml/
> > >
> > > These version will fix some bugs, provide better libxml/libxslt

support,

> > enable namespace support in xml ext and allow for building of

xmlwriter in

> > pecl.
> > > I have been testing these libs for a bit now (4.3 and 5) and haven't

run

Steph

22 years ago

well.. would it kill anyone to have iconv built-in anyway?  I mean by
default built-in?  At present that's done purely for libxml but Frank's
right, gtk+ also has it as a dependency.  Are these the only two areas that
rely on iconv at all?

We had a discussion about integrating iconv before now (iliaa, me,
moriyoshi) but at the time the focus of the discussion was mbstring.

AFAICR there's been no further discussion about it.  Wez could answer me a
question here: if iconv was built-in, would it now (or will it soon be)
possible to ensure that it was built prior to libxml or any other extension
that might rely on it?

And who cares about BSDI anyway?  ;)

Wez Furlong

22 years ago

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:15:09 +0100, Steph <steph@zend.com> wrote:

> Wez could answer me a
> question here: if iconv was built-in, would it now (or will it soon be)
> possible to ensure that it was built prior to libxml or any other extension
> that might rely on it?

Yep, my patch is in HEAD. (5.1)

> And who cares about BSDI anyway?  ;)

Apparently, no one ;-)

--Wez.

Rob Richards

22 years ago

From: Steph

> well.. would it kill anyone to have iconv built-in anyway?  I mean by
> default built-in?  At present that's done purely for libxml but Frank's
> right, gtk+ also has it as a dependency.  Are these the only two areas

that

> rely on iconv at all?

As far as I could tell yes those are the only areas, note that under libxml
you are including:
xml, simplexml, dom, xsl, wddx, soap, xmlrpc (and xmlreader/writer in
pecl)

The only way for it to work is either with Wez's dependancy patch or if done
in 5.0 branch the iconv lib would have to statically be built into php5ts
and exported wether or not the iconv ext was built statically or shared.

I do think it would be a good idea to be able to build iconv without having
libxml support though.

Rob