Everything

php

Module API Changes

php.internals

Michael B Allen

19 years ago

I see the module API has changed between 5.0 and 5.1. This caused my
module to fail to load with:

PHP Warning: PHP Startup: z\x17\xfc\xb6d\x12\xfc\xb6: Unable to initialize module
Module compiled with module API=20041030, debug=0, thread-safety=0
PHP    compiled with module API=20050922, debug=0, thread-safety=0
These options need to match
in Unknown on line 0

Obviously this is problematic when shipping binaries. Basically I now
have modules for 4, 5.0, and 5.1 in my installation package and look at
phpversion() to determine which one to install.

Are these module changes very common?

Is there an easier way to ship module binaries?

Is the major verion number guaranteed to change when the module API
changes?

Are there any other module API changes between 4 and the current version
of PHP that would cause my module to fail to load?

Thanks,
Mike

--
Michael B Allen
PHP Active Directory SSO
http://www.ioplex.com/

Pierre Joye

19 years ago

Hello,

On 9/14/06, Michael B Allen <mba2000@ioplex.com> wrote:

> Are there any other module API changes between 4 and the current version
> of PHP that would cause my module to fail to load?

PHP internals API has many changes between two major versions. Don't
expect a module compiled for php4 to be loaded smoothly in php5, the
same applies from one minor version to another. You have to provide a
binary per minor version, and for debug or non debug builds, like any
other DLL/so.

(5.0 and 5.1 are php5 minor versions, for example)

--Pierre

Michael B Allen

19 years ago

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:49:16 +0200
Pierre <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 9/14/06, Michael B Allen <mba2000@ioplex.com> wrote:
>
> > Are there any other module API changes between 4 and the current version
> > of PHP that would cause my module to fail to load?
>
> PHP internals API has many changes between two major versions. Don't
> expect a module compiled for php4 to be loaded smoothly in php5, the
> same applies from one minor version to another. You have to provide a
> binary per minor version, and for debug or non debug builds, like any
> other DLL/so.
>
> (5.0 and 5.1 are php5 minor versions, for example)

Sorry, I meant to say minor version. So the minor version will change
if the module API changes?

Our module compiles without modifcation with 4, 5.0, and 5.1.

Is it possible to load a module compiled with a ZEND_MODULE_API_NO that
differs from the one PHP was compiled with?

Is it possible for a module compiled with debugging to be loaded in a
debug build of PHP?

It's not a horribly big deal to ship 3 modules but it would be nice if
our package had a level of forward compatibility (e.g. worked with a
new snapshot that introduced a moduel API change).

Has the module API changed in 5.2?

Thanks,
Mike

--
Michael B Allen
PHP Active Directory SSO
http://www.ioplex.com/

Pierre Joye

19 years ago

Hello,

On 9/14/06, Michael B Allen <mba2000@ioplex.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:49:16 +0200
> Pierre <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On 9/14/06, Michael B Allen <mba2000@ioplex.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Are there any other module API changes between 4 and the current version
> > > of PHP that would cause my module to fail to load?
> >
> > PHP internals API has many changes between two major versions. Don't
> > expect a module compiled for php4 to be loaded smoothly in php5, the
> > same applies from one minor version to another. You have to provide a
> > binary per minor version, and for debug or non debug builds, like any
> > other DLL/so.
> >
> > (5.0 and 5.1 are php5 minor versions, for example)
>
> Sorry, I meant to say minor version. So the minor version will change
> if the module API changes?
>
> Our module compiles without modifcation with 4, 5.0, and 5.1.

Some of mines too. The problem is not to compile but to load it.

> Is it possible to load a module compiled with a ZEND_MODULE_API_NO that
> differs from the one PHP was compiled with?

No

> Is it possible for a module compiled with debugging to be loaded in a
> debug build of PHP?

Neither

> It's not a horribly big deal to ship 3 modules but it would be nice if
> our package had a level of forward compatibility (e.g. worked with a
> new snapshot that introduced a moduel API change).

If it a snapshot have a new API, it will also have a new API version
and will be available in  a new minor/major PHP version.

> Has the module API changed in 5.2?

Yes, if not it will still be 5.1.x. I think the changes will be
explained in the README.UPDATE_5_2 file in CVS, or they are already
in.

--Pierre

Steph

19 years ago

Hi Michael, Pierre -

Erm, no they aren't in the upgrade guide, because the upgrade guide is aimed
at user issues and this was seen primarily as an extension author issue. Do
people generally think the module and extension API bumps should be in
there?

- Steph

Pierre Joye

19 years ago

Hello,

On 9/14/06, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote:

> Hi Michael, Pierre -
>
> Erm, no they aren't in the upgrade guide, because the upgrade guide is aimed
> at user issues and this was seen primarily as an extension author issue. Do
> people generally think the module and extension API bumps should be in
> there?

Rasmus was talking about the internals change and ask if they can be
put in this file. I think it is a very good suggestion and no, I did
not have the time (and will not in the next 10 days) to do it :)

--Pierre

Steph

19 years ago

OK, has anyone enough time to commit this please?

I left the extension API change out of it though (the ME_* support) - does
that really need to go in there too?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pierre" <pierre.php@gmail.com>
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
Cc: "Michael B Allen" <mba2000@ioplex.com>; <internals@lists.php.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Module API Changes

Pierre Joye

19 years ago

Hello,

On 9/14/06, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote:

> OK, has anyone enough time to commit this please?
>
> I left the extension API change out of it though (the ME_* support) - does
> that really need to go in there too?

This thread justifies the addition (and all other about the same topic :).

Steph

19 years ago

Huh?

The question was about module API change, which is transparent to anyone
mixing and matching PHP and module versions (which incidentally they
shouldn't be doing in the first place). The extension API doesn't matter to
anyone but extension authors... and actually I can't remember if the code
for that retained BC off-hand too... need to check...

There were a handful of minor API breakages that I vaguely remember fixing
for PHP-GTK back then, but they came under the 'extension API bump'
mbrella  - in other words, they were ignored in their own right. Again,
these were things that would be evident to an extension maintainer rather
than an end user - and everything there would be better covered in
README.EXTENSIONS than in an upgrade file aimed at end users, where it just
looks scary and oblique.

OK so I'll update that file tomorrow and reference it from the upgrade file.
Any objections to that approach?

- Steph


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pierre" <pierre.php@gmail.com>
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
Cc: "Michael B Allen" <mba2000@ioplex.com>; <internals@lists.php.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Module API Changes

Pierre Joye

19 years ago

Hello,

On 9/14/06, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote:

> Huh?
>
> The question was about module API change, which is transparent to anyone
> mixing and matching PHP and module versions (which incidentally they
> shouldn't be doing in the first place). The extension API doesn't matter to
> anyone but extension authors...

Which are the target audience for this text, maybe I was not clear :)

> README.EXTENSIONS than in an upgrade file aimed at end users, where it just
> looks scary and oblique.
>
> OK so I'll update that file tomorrow and reference it from the upgrade file.
> Any objections to that approach?

As long as there is a notice in the 5.2 ugprade me, I'm fine with
that. Something like "internal API changed, see...".

Thanks :)

--Pierre

Philip Olson

19 years ago

>> Erm, no they aren't in the upgrade guide, because the upgrade
>> guide is aimed
>> at user issues and this was seen primarily as an extension author
>> issue. Do
>> people generally think the module and extension API bumps should
>> be in
>> there?
>
> Rasmus was talking about the internals change and ask if they can be
> put in this file. I think it is a very good suggestion and no, I did
> not have the time (and will not in the next 10 days) to do it :)

And a FYI, the documentation team has decided to create migration
pages for minor releases of PHP and will use these README files as a
base for this documentation. Before only major versions were
documented this way. All should feel free to contribute to these
docs :-)

Regards,
Philip

Michael B Allen

19 years ago

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:25:49 +0200
"Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com> wrote:

> Hi Michael, Pierre -
>
> Erm, no they aren't in the upgrade guide, because the upgrade guide is aimed
> at user issues and this was seen primarily as an extension author issue. Do
> people generally think the module and extension API bumps should be in
> there?

I fine with looking at the source but it would be nice if there was a
url WebCVS or somewhere to get a quick answer.

Otherwise the only thing I really care about is that the minor number be
incremented whenever ZEND_MODULE_API_NO changes. Obviously the installer
needs that to pick the right module to install based on phpversion().

Mike

--
Michael B Allen
PHP Active Directory SSO
http://www.ioplex.com/

Steph

19 years ago

Hi Michael,

>
> Otherwise the only thing I really care about is that the minor number be
> incremented whenever ZEND_MODULE_API_NO changes. Obviously the installer
> needs that to pick the right module to install based on phpversion().

Bug it? :)

(against the installer I mean)