Re: [PHP-DEV] GD vs Imagick

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  100331
August 31, 2017 01:30 kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)
2. Releasing Imagick with PHP means that the release cycles would need

to be sync'ed. This has proven to be inconvenient in the past when an
extension has wanted to change the api, but was forced to wait due to
needed to wait for the next minor/major version of PHP.


Why would they need to be synced?  When PHP releases a new version, can't
we just bundle the latest Imagick build and plug into that?

Sure, having them in sync would yield certain benefits, but none of them
appear to be deal-breakers to me.  Or am I just missing something?

--Kris
  100464
September 8, 2017 09:34 rasmus@mindplay.dk (Rasmus Schultz)
Yeah, I keep thinking about this.

I'm not sure there's a really good reason why PHP shouldn't come with
best-in-class image support, if it's available - which it sounds like it
is; libvips looks more modern, lower memory and CPU overhead, better
overall really, and appears to be stable and up-to-date?

Yeah, it has dependencies. Doesn't everything? Does it matter, as long as
they're bundled?


On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Kris Craig craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2. Releasing Imagick with PHP means that the release cycles would need > > to be sync'ed. This has proven to be inconvenient in the past when an > extension has wanted to change the api, but was forced to wait due to > needed to wait for the next minor/major version of PHP. > > > Why would they need to be synced? When PHP releases a new version, can't > we just bundle the latest Imagick build and plug into that? > > Sure, having them in sync would yield certain benefits, but none of them > appear to be deal-breakers to me. Or am I just missing something? > > --Kris > >