[rrd-developers] new rrd tool php extension

[Miroslav Kubelík - seznam]

On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:17:14 +0200, Benny Baumann <BenBE at geshi.org> wrote:

> Could you give a small overview on the current implemented feature set?
> Which functions of rrdtool did you already implement with your extension
> which the older (see thread by me) extension (non-OOP) didn't already  
> have.

Nothing special nowadays, graph, update and create are already supported.  
Maybe other will be in a future, but I need to investigate if the are  
really needed and if I get achieve good php OO interface.

I know only about extension which is in the php svn repository and this  
one is mostly 1:1 wrapper for rrd functions. This type of wrappers isn't  
acceptable for PECL nowadays I think.

My primary goal for OO extension is to provide very simple "PHP way"  
interface for manipulating with rrd, which I can archive only with  
objects, setters (mutators) and exceptions. I don't plan to use non-OO BC  
functionality nowadays. Extension uses internally same functions as the  
current one in the rrd svn.

I read some threads about your patches, but I don't find any code. Can you
send some links to code?

> I'd be glad if we could "join forces" on the PHP Extension to avoid
> duplicate coding and having a uniform extension interface for RRDTool.
> Most people having a RRD Extension for PHP are using the version I
> posted here on the list or some ancient anchestor of it.

Nowadays I don't plan to keep BC with old extension, because I don't like  
current extension behavior which is very similar to command line usage.

My goal is simple OO interface for basic rrd stuff, I don't think that php
extension users need fetch, tune, xport, dump...

There can be two extensions, OO extension code is different from the  
procedural
one in many ways I think.

>
> But well, having an OOP interface sounds cool to me and I'd be glad to
> integrate it.

Try to see my repo at http://hg.mirin.cz/phprrd/, there were problems last
days, but now it could by fine. If you integrate it, I can give you an
access to pecl if I get one. Then you can move your code as primary one to  
pecl.

M. Kubelik