I like Antony's suggestion of bserialize, both for the extension name
and the function names (bserialize(), and bunserialize()), but that's
against our function naming policy.
binary_unserialize() and binary_serialize(), aside from being too
long, aren't really correct IMO.
Anyone with better ideas?
If not, I suggest going with bserialize() and bunserialize().
It might also be worth looking into having the pluggable serializers
used by the session module exposed as session_serialize() or something
like that.
--Wez
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:35:05 +0200, Bernd Römer <fumi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> hi...
>
> as already announced i implemented a faster substitution for the
> standard php-session.serialize_handler. It also offers 2 functions:
> binary_serialize() and binary_unserialize(). I just renamed it to
> serialize_binary because the old name, fbinary (where the "f" comes from
> my nick fumanchi), was not political correct...
>
> is anybody against commiting this extension into pecl, or against the
> name, or against both? any further exceptions? if not i will try to
> commit and register the package this very day.
>
> on this note...
>
> ---bernd roemer---
>
> PS.: the extension is similar to: http://fum.no-ip.com/php/fbinary/, but
> has changed its name and was cleand up a bit..
>
> --
> PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
|
