Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » PHP 5.3 Suggested Feature List (Summary) »

PHP 5.3 Suggested Feature List (Summary)

php.internals

Ilia A.

18 years ago
Just over a week has passed since the suggested list of features for PHP 5.3 was posted and it looks like all of the people who wanted to throw in their votes managed to do so. My thanks to all of the people who voted and kept the discussion on track. Here is the end result of all the hoopla. Feature Suggestion Total Votes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- Backport the namespaces patch for PHP 6 20 Symlink the intl extension from PECL 12 Apply the Late Static Binding Patch 21 Implement David's Circular Garbage collection patch 7.5 Implement Sqlite3 support via the ext/sqlite extension 14.5 Remove safe_mode, register_globals and magic_quotes -14 Introduce mysqlind library into core 19.5 OpenID enabling patch for OpenSSL and PHP 5 20 Add array_replace[_recursive] functions (patch is already available) 13 Split off deprecation from E_STRICT into E_DEPRECATED 22 Merge the zend_arg_info const'ify patch 15 Merge the GCC 4 -fvisibility patch 6 Switch for disabling/enabling materialized cursors in mysqli 3 Link phar extension from PECL into core 6 Merge Matt's ZEND_SIGNED_MULTIPLY_LONG() optimization patch 17.5 Introduce new php.ini files parser/scanner + CGI/FastCGI 13 Merge __callStatic patch from PHP 6 20.5 Introduce concept of "strict classes" that do not permit dynamic property creation 6 There were a total of 28 people who voted, so a maximum vote was 28. For the most part it seems that there is a general consensus on the features to go into PHP 5.3, my suggestion is that all features with
>10 points are to be put into the 5.3 TODO and the rest can have
another change for PHP 6 and/or PHP 5.4 (if that comes to pass). Either way, there definitely appears to be a set a solid reasons to start the 5.3 branch. Ilia Alshanetsky

Stanislav Malyshev

18 years ago
Hi! Thanks for organizing the things! What we do wih "low score" ones? I think it's good to note that -1 and +1 isn't the same as two 0's... Will the TODO be on http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP53?
> For the most part it seems that there is a general consensus on the > features to go into PHP 5.3, my suggestion is that all features with >10 > points are to be put into the 5.3 TODO and the rest can have another > change for PHP 6 and/or PHP 5.4 (if that comes to pass). Either way, > there definitely appears to be a set a solid reasons to start the 5.3 > branch.
Will there be also 5.2.5? From the feature set looks like 5.3 is going to take some time and in the meantime we have bugfixes, etc. - so it makes sense to me.
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com

Ilia A.

18 years ago
On 15-Sep-07, at 7:18 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi! > > Thanks for organizing the things!
NP ;-) Btw the detailed breakdown of the votes is available here http://bb.prohost.org/53Features.pdf
> What we do wih "low score" ones? I think it's good to note that -1 > and +1 isn't the same as two 0's... > Will the TODO be on http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP53?
Given that the low score items is fairly well separated from the ones that got a significant score, I think due to lack of interest or consensus we should shelve them at least for the time being. 5.3 is not the last PHP release, and there will definitely be chances in the future to revisit the points.
>> For the most part it seems that there is a general consensus on >> the features to go into PHP 5.3, my suggestion is that all >> features with >10 points are to be put into the 5.3 TODO and the >> rest can have another change for PHP 6 and/or PHP 5.4 (if that >> comes to pass). Either way, there definitely appears to be a set a >> solid reasons to start the 5.3 branch. > > Will there be also 5.2.5? From the feature set looks like 5.3 is > going to take some time and in the meantime we have bugfixes, etc. > - so it makes sense to me.
The "agenda" for 5.3 looks to be fairly busy, and I don't think we can wait 6-7 months between releases, so 5.2.X branch will need to be maintained while 5.3 is being made ready for production. Ilia Alshanetsky

Lukas Kahwe Smith

18 years ago
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> > On 15-Sep-07, at 7:18 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> NP ;-) Btw the detailed breakdown of the votes is available here > http://bb.prohost.org/53Features.pdf
I have taken the data from this PDF and slightly reworked things [1] so that its easy to see which topics got more attention with votes than others. I think its critical to understand that several items were hard for the general community to vote on because of lack of expertise (as noted in several votes). As such I find it questionable to apply a +10 threshold on all items. Furthermore I ask everybody to review if his vote was interpreted as they wanted in Ilia's PDF. Some people made their votes conditional, which is not supported by the formats chosen for tallying up the votes. regards, Lukas [1] http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP53VoteResult

Ilia A.

18 years ago
On 16-Sep-07, at 11:02 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >> On 15-Sep-07, at 7:18 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > >> NP ;-) Btw the detailed breakdown of the votes is available here >> http://bb.prohost.org/53Features.pdf > > I have taken the data from this PDF and slightly reworked things > [1] so that its easy to see which topics got more attention with > votes than others. I think its critical to understand that several > items were hard for the general community to vote on because of > lack of expertise (as noted in several votes). As such I find it > questionable to apply a +10 threshold on all items. > > Furthermore I ask everybody to review if his vote was interpreted > as they wanted in Ilia's PDF. Some people made their votes > conditional, which is not supported by the formats chosen for > tallying up the votes.
Lukas has a good point about the "0" votes, however if there are niche features most people don't really care/know about that in itself means that there is not much support for said functionality. IMHO the point of the vote was to identify KEY features general community (developers & users) would like to see in 5.3, not to introduce feature creep, which re-enumeration of the vote does to some extent, please keep that mind when reviewing the #s. Additionally, remember that 5.3 is a "minor" release and is not the most appropriate platform for "anything & everything" inclusion. Ilia Alshanetsky

Steph

18 years ago
Hi Ilia, If it helps any we can count everything else in and just look at the ones that failed: No quorum: ====================== Switch for disabling/enabling materialized cursors in mysqli - 25/28 no vote, 3 positive votes Merge the GCC 4 -fvisibility patch - 20/28 no vote, 7 positive votes, 1 negative vote Voting anomalies: ================ Introduce concept of "strict classes" that do not permit dynamic property creation - 12/28 no vote, 12 positive, 4 negative Implement David's Circular Garbage collection patch - 13/28 no vote, 11 positive, 4 negative Link phar extension from PECL into core - 12/28 no vote, 11 positive, 5 negative Definitely out: ============== Remove safe_mode, register_globals and magic_quotes - 6/28 no vote, 4 positive, 18 negative I think it's probably fair to say that the mysqli-specific issue shouldn't be on this agenda in the first place, and the GCC 4 patch most likely failed because those that aren't directly affected by it don't understand it enough to vote over it. That leaves just three features that fail under your voting system but might pass under others. The question is whether those three are up for debate now, or later. - Steph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org> To: "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <mls@pooteeweet.org> Cc: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>; "PHP Developers Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3 Suggested Feature List (Summary)

Marcus Börger

18 years ago
Hello Steph, speakin as a looser - we should keep what we just decided on and do it. Do it as in work on it. As in code. As in no more politics for the moment. marcus Sunday, September 16, 2007, 6:12:14 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Ilia,
> If it helps any we can count everything else in and just look at the ones > that failed:
> No quorum: > ====================== > Switch for disabling/enabling materialized cursors in mysqli - 25/28 no > vote, 3 positive votes > Merge the GCC 4 -fvisibility patch - 20/28 no vote, 7 positive votes, 1 > negative vote
> Voting anomalies: > ================ > Introduce concept of "strict classes" that do not permit dynamic property > creation - 12/28 no vote, 12 positive, 4 negative > Implement David's Circular Garbage collection patch - 13/28 no vote, 11 > positive, 4 negative > Link phar extension from PECL into core - 12/28 no vote, 11 positive, 5 > negative
> Definitely out: > ============== > Remove safe_mode, register_globals and magic_quotes - 6/28 no vote, 4 > positive, 18 negative
> I think it's probably fair to say that the mysqli-specific issue shouldn't > be on this agenda in the first place, and the GCC 4 patch most likely failed > because those that aren't directly affected by it don't understand it enough > to vote over it.
> That leaves just three features that fail under your voting system but might > pass under others. The question is whether those three are up for debate > now, or later.
> - Steph
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org> > To: "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <mls@pooteeweet.org> > Cc: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>; "PHP Developers Mailing List" > <internals@lists.php.net> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:31 PM > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3 Suggested Feature List (Summary)
>> >> On 16-Sep-07, at 11:02 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >> >>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >>>> On 15-Sep-07, at 7:18 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >>> >>>> NP ;-) Btw the detailed breakdown of the votes is available here >>>> http://bb.prohost.org/53Features.pdf >>> >>> I have taken the data from this PDF and slightly reworked things [1] so >>> that its easy to see which topics got more attention with votes than >>> others. I think its critical to understand that several items were hard >>> for the general community to vote on because of lack of expertise (as >>> noted in several votes). As such I find it questionable to apply a +10 >>> threshold on all items. >>> >>> Furthermore I ask everybody to review if his vote was interpreted as >>> they wanted in Ilia's PDF. Some people made their votes conditional, >>> which is not supported by the formats chosen for tallying up the votes. >> >> Lukas has a good point about the "0" votes, however if there are niche >> features most people don't really care/know about that in itself means >> that there is not much support for said functionality. IMHO the point of >> the vote was to identify KEY features general community (developers & >> users) would like to see in 5.3, not to introduce feature creep, which >> re-enumeration of the vote does to some extent, please keep that mind >> when reviewing the #s. Additionally, remember that 5.3 is a "minor" >> release and is not the most appropriate platform for "anything & >> everything" inclusion. >> >> Ilia Alshanetsky >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>
Best regards, Marcus

Steph

18 years ago
Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into an extension or a specific build system purely on the level of outside interest in them. That's the main problem here. The three contentious items, I'd probably (reluctantly) agree with you. - Steph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net> To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com> Cc: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org>; "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <mls@pooteeweet.org>; "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>; "PHP Developers Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3 Suggested Feature List (Summary)

Marcus Börger

18 years ago
Hello Steph, I did neither meant to dictate anything nor did I said never.... ...and pure lack of interest belongs into democracy, so if we go that route we have to accept that route :-) If not we can proceed as we did in the past. Have votings and politics but in the end ignoring decisions anyway. marcus Sunday, September 16, 2007, 7:02:28 PM, you wrote:
> Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into an > extension or a specific build system purely on the level of outside interest > in them. That's the main problem here.
> The three contentious items, I'd probably (reluctantly) agree with you.
> - Steph
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net> > To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com> > Cc: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org>; "Lukas Kahwe Smith" > <mls@pooteeweet.org>; "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>; "PHP Developers > Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:47 PM > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3 Suggested Feature List (Summary)
>> Hello Steph, >> >> speakin as a looser - we should keep what we just decided on and do it. >> Do it as in work on it. As in code. As in no more politics for the moment. >> >> marcus >> >> Sunday, September 16, 2007, 6:12:14 PM, you wrote: >> >>> Hi Ilia, >> >>> If it helps any we can count everything else in and just look at the ones >>> that failed: >> >>> No quorum: >>> ====================== >>> Switch for disabling/enabling materialized cursors in mysqli - 25/28 no >>> vote, 3 positive votes >>> Merge the GCC 4 -fvisibility patch - 20/28 no vote, 7 positive votes, 1 >>> negative vote >> >>> Voting anomalies: >>> ================ >>> Introduce concept of "strict classes" that do not permit dynamic property >>> creation - 12/28 no vote, 12 positive, 4 negative >>> Implement David's Circular Garbage collection patch - 13/28 no vote, 11 >>> positive, 4 negative >>> Link phar extension from PECL into core - 12/28 no vote, 11 positive, 5 >>> negative >> >>> Definitely out: >>> ============== >>> Remove safe_mode, register_globals and magic_quotes - 6/28 no vote, 4 >>> positive, 18 negative >> >>> I think it's probably fair to say that the mysqli-specific issue >>> shouldn't >>> be on this agenda in the first place, and the GCC 4 patch most likely >>> failed >>> because those that aren't directly affected by it don't understand it >>> enough >>> to vote over it. >> >>> That leaves just three features that fail under your voting system but >>> might >>> pass under others. The question is whether those three are up for debate >>> now, or later. >> >>> - Steph >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org> >>> To: "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <mls@pooteeweet.org> >>> Cc: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>; "PHP Developers Mailing List" >>> <internals@lists.php.net> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:31 PM >>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3 Suggested Feature List (Summary) >> >> >>>> >>>> On 16-Sep-07, at 11:02 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >>>>>> On 15-Sep-07, at 7:18 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> NP ;-) Btw the detailed breakdown of the votes is available here >>>>>> http://bb.prohost.org/53Features.pdf >>>>> >>>>> I have taken the data from this PDF and slightly reworked things [1] >>>>> so >>>>> that its easy to see which topics got more attention with votes than >>>>> others. I think its critical to understand that several items were >>>>> hard >>>>> for the general community to vote on because of lack of expertise (as >>>>> noted in several votes). As such I find it questionable to apply a +10 >>>>> threshold on all items. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore I ask everybody to review if his vote was interpreted as >>>>> they wanted in Ilia's PDF. Some people made their votes conditional, >>>>> which is not supported by the formats chosen for tallying up the >>>>> votes. >>>> >>>> Lukas has a good point about the "0" votes, however if there are niche >>>> features most people don't really care/know about that in itself means >>>> that there is not much support for said functionality. IMHO the point >>>> of >>>> the vote was to identify KEY features general community (developers & >>>> users) would like to see in 5.3, not to introduce feature creep, which >>>> re-enumeration of the vote does to some extent, please keep that mind >>>> when reviewing the #s. Additionally, remember that 5.3 is a "minor" >>>> release and is not the most appropriate platform for "anything & >>>> everything" inclusion. >>>> >>>> Ilia Alshanetsky >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> Marcus >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>
Best regards, Marcus

Ilia A.

18 years ago
On 16-Sep-07, at 1:02 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
> Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into > an extension or a specific build system purely on the level of > outside interest in them.
Steph, isn't the goal of "core" to contain things that are of common use and are not for niche uses and wouldn't lack of interest imply its a niche feature? Ilia Alshanetsky

Steph

18 years ago
Hi Ilia,
>> Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into an >> extension or a specific build system purely on the level of outside >> interest in them. > > Steph, isn't the goal of "core" to contain things that are of common use > and are not for niche uses and wouldn't lack of interest imply its a > niche feature?
But build systems and extensions are part of the core.... I'm failing to see why a Windows user's lack of interest in GCC 4 should mean that GCC users don't get something they voted for, is all. Or why a patch affecting only the mysqli extension should be part of a vote about core features. I do see your point when it comes to genuine core features that didn't get the required number of votes. Honest! - Steph

Derick Rethans

18 years ago
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> On 16-Sep-07, at 1:02 PM, Steph Fox wrote: > > > Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into > > an extension or a specific build system purely on the level of > > outside interest in them. > > Steph, isn't the goal of "core" to contain things that are of common > use and are not for niche uses and wouldn't lack of interest imply its > a niche feature?
It's not so simple, because not everything can be done in extensions; and as Lukas said... not everybody felt qualified to vote on all the different points either. regards, Derick

Stanislav Malyshev

18 years ago
> Lukas has a good point about the "0" votes, however if there are niche > features most people don't really care/know about that in itself means > that there is not much support for said functionality. IMHO the point of
There's a difference. Let't take two features which got similar voting record - -fvisibility and "strict classes". I think these things are redically different. First is the small build change that would not change anything in the language and will not influence anybody except PHP extensions builders, where it can provide small benefit. Second changes the language and adds a feature which is controversial - some think it adds much needed capabilities, while other think it goes contrary to the very spirit of the language. Clearly these are not equal. While the first can be implemented with little impact the second needs much more consideration and I think it can't be decided by simple voting. So while I think making list and voting is great, I think we shouldn't replace good old per-case consideration and discussion with arithmetics. If we have clear winners and losers, it's fine, but in between we still need to hear the case.
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com

David

18 years ago
Hey all, On 9/17/07, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:
> So while I think making list and voting is great, I think we shouldn't > replace good old per-case consideration and discussion with arithmetics. > If we have clear winners and losers, it's fine, but in between we still > need to hear the case.
I couldn't agree with this more. The vote was very helpful in narrowing the field of debate: Now there's only three things to be discussed and work can start on making ready the majority of 5.3. However, there were a lot of no-votes on those topics due to lack of information and further discussion would lead to a more informed decision. There probably should be a separate round of voting on just those three issues after some discussion. Speaking in particular about the GC :-), I know there hasn't been widespread review of it (only those who have downloaded my working copy from a separate repository) and I certainly don't think everyone who voted on it have actually played around with it. My personal opinion is that it is ready for 5.3 and should be put into 5.3. It is stable, end-users will not be affected unless they want to use it, extension writers should not even be affected, there is no performance degradation and it would help make PHP a much more credible language to use for anything that runs for longer than a web script. I've been bumping the prerequisite macro patch thread for so long to no avail that it's starting to get embarrassing. Could people take another look at it and tell me whether a vote between the two versions of it would now be appropriate? David

Lukas Kahwe Smith

18 years ago
David Wang wrote:
> My personal opinion is that it is ready for 5.3 and should be put into > 5.3. It is stable, end-users will not be affected unless they want to > use it, extension writers should not even be affected, there is no > performance degradation and it would help make PHP a much more > credible language to use for anything that runs for longer than a web > script.
I think this key point wasnt clear. I think most people thought GC would be enabled by default and could introduce BC issues. Since then my understanding of the issue has changed that its disabled by default and can be enabled via php.ini or a userland call .. regards, Lukas

Lester Caine

18 years ago
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>> For the most part it seems that there is a general consensus on the >>> features to go into PHP 5.3, my suggestion is that all features with >>> >10 points are to be put into the 5.3 TODO and the rest can have >>> another change for PHP 6 and/or PHP 5.4 (if that comes to pass). >>> Either way, there definitely appears to be a set a solid reasons to >>> start the 5.3 branch. >> >> Will there be also 5.2.5? From the feature set looks like 5.3 is going >> to take some time and in the meantime we have bugfixes, etc. - so it >> makes sense to me. > > The "agenda" for 5.3 looks to be fairly busy, and I don't think we can > wait 6-7 months between releases, so 5.2.X branch will need to be > maintained while 5.3 is being made ready for production.
Does that statement imply that PHP6 is at least another 12 months away :( Does all this effort simply push the adoption of PHP6 as the main branch further back. ( And I'd still like to know what use the code for mysqlind is for those of us who will never enable mysql ? )
-- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

Pierre Joye

18 years ago
Hi Lester, On 9/17/07, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> ( And I'd still like to know what use the code for mysqlind is for those of us > who will never enable mysql ? )
Only ext/mysql and ext/mysqli use it. PDO is somehow "planed" but I have serious doubts about the motivations of mysql to ever support pdo like they support other generic connectors (see .net...). Cheers, --Pierre

Keryx Web

18 years ago
Pierre skrev:
> Only ext/mysql and ext/mysqli use it. PDO is somehow "planed" but I > have serious doubts about the motivations of mysql to ever support pdo > like they support other generic connectors (see .net...).
The first posts on the net from MySQL-people talked about mysqli first, PDO second and not the old mysql-functions at all. I think that if the PHP community really starts commit to PDO, like in teaching PDO *first* to beginners and using PDO for normal examples in blog posts and on book pages, the people at MySQL will make sure that PDO_MYSQL moves to the new lib as well. Also, is it not George S, Ilia and Wez that are listed as mainters of PDO_MYSQL? Lars Gunther

Pierre Joye

18 years ago
On 9/17/07, Keryx Web <webmaster@keryx.se> wrote:
> Pierre skrev: > > > Only ext/mysql and ext/mysqli use it. PDO is somehow "planed" but I > > have serious doubts about the motivations of mysql to ever support pdo > > like they support other generic connectors (see .net...). > > The first posts on the net from MySQL-people talked about mysqli first, > PDO second and not the old mysql-functions at all.
And the facts are: mysql first, then mysqli and pdo "if it works well when you are done".
> I think that if the PHP community really starts commit to PDO, like in > teaching PDO *first* to beginners and using PDO for normal examples in > blog posts and on book pages, the people at MySQL will make sure that > PDO_MYSQL moves to the new lib as well.
Well, it is already the case, did not change anything.
> Also, is it not George S, Ilia and Wez that are listed as mainters of > PDO_MYSQL?
Yes, as they do all the initial work. What's the point? Mysql was not a maintainer/initiator of any of the .net db layers (or any other language). --Pierre

Lukas Kahwe Smith

18 years ago
Pierre wrote:
>> Also, is it not George S, Ilia and Wez that are listed as mainters of >> PDO_MYSQL? > > Yes, as they do all the initial work. What's the point? Mysql was not > a maintainer/initiator of any of the .net db layers (or any other > language).
I will try to discuss this and get a commitment at the developers meeting in Heidelberg next week. regards, Lukas

Lukas Kahwe Smith

18 years ago
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Pierre wrote: > >>> Also, is it not George S, Ilia and Wez that are listed as mainters of >>> PDO_MYSQL? >> >> Yes, as they do all the initial work. What's the point? Mysql was not >> a maintainer/initiator of any of the .net db layers (or any other >> language). > > I will try to discuss this and get a commitment at the developers > meeting in Heidelberg next week.
Ok, it seems that MySQL AB is finally committing to fix up PDO_MySQL and to generally accept the fact that PDO is the future. Of course mysqli will also be actively maintained. But they will also make mysqlnd play nicely with PDO etc. They have a budget allocated for PDO development. They will soon assign a developer on this I am told. As part of this effort it is expected that the entire PDO test suite will also benefit. Furthermore they have allocated someone from the doc team to check over the ext/mysql and ext/mysqli docs. I will poke the relevant people at regular intervals, that any MySQL specific features in PDO will make it into the docs. regards, Lukas

Alexey Zakhlestin

18 years ago
On 9/24/07, Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org> wrote:
> > Ok, it seems that MySQL AB is finally committing to fix up PDO_MySQL and > to generally accept the fact that PDO is the future. Of course mysqli > will also be actively maintained. But they will also make mysqlnd play > nicely with PDO etc. > > They have a budget allocated for PDO development. They will soon assign > a developer on this I am told. As part of this effort it is expected > that the entire PDO test suite will also benefit. > > Furthermore they have allocated someone from the doc team to check over > the ext/mysql and ext/mysqli docs. I will poke the relevant people at > regular intervals, that any MySQL specific features in PDO will make it > into the docs.
Thanks, Lukas! That's a great news!
-- Alexey Zakhlestin http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/

Ilia A.

18 years ago
Those are very welcome news indeed. I look forward to participation of MySQL AB folks in the PDO development. On 24-Sep-07, at 7:31 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >> Pierre wrote: >>>> Also, is it not George S, Ilia and Wez that are listed as >>>> mainters of >>>> PDO_MYSQL? >>> >>> Yes, as they do all the initial work. What's the point? Mysql was >>> not >>> a maintainer/initiator of any of the .net db layers (or any other >>> language). >> I will try to discuss this and get a commitment at the developers >> meeting in Heidelberg next week. > > Ok, it seems that MySQL AB is finally committing to fix up > PDO_MySQL and to generally accept the fact that PDO is the future. > Of course mysqli will also be actively maintained. But they will > also make mysqlnd play nicely with PDO etc. > > They have a budget allocated for PDO development. They will soon > assign a developer on this I am told. As part of this effort it is > expected that the entire PDO test suite will also benefit. > > Furthermore they have allocated someone from the doc team to check > over the ext/mysql and ext/mysqli docs. I will poke the relevant > people at regular intervals, that any MySQL specific features in > PDO will make it into the docs. > > regards, > Lukas > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >
Ilia Alshanetsky