Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100161
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain bk.ru designates 94.100.177.104 as permitted sender)
References: <1907EFF3-ED77-4F5C-85AA-CDFE323369C5@bk.ru> <CA+kxMuRXTxxsWyHumtGiyjU+pQ_KSTbtiNMd-V+U9YKPgxCNyA@mail.gmail.com> <880CDC06-17D6-4E40-8A48-F2E1CB405667@bk.ru> <CA+kxMuRXnUrnhqQQW9pj--UY8eSQoOrZriMUioG5Th_-8HmYqg@mail.gmail.com> <2A653728-97CA-4AA5-BA30-5BF26FABBC2A@bk.ru> <1501512881.14647.31.camel@schlueters.de> <94973CB5-A3F8-4BE4-9A78-8F759D1829E7@bk.ru> <1501515189.14647.35.camel@schlueters.de> <B11F0039-0508-43B3-9873-E99AA58F12F1@bk.ru> <CA+kxMuTrGdBfhRZMe=7ct3s98CHJOXvrhE1+zzc2GrAqtyOMRA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuTrGdBfhRZMe=7ct3s98CHJOXvrhE1+zzc2GrAqtyOMRA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Message-ID: <30F12FDF-4FC0-4B26-B122-EEB62C50010B@bk.ru>
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 18:12:00 +0300
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Request][Discussion] Introduce interfaces PDOInterface and PDOStatementInterface
From: newaltgroup@bk.ru (Andrew Nester)



> 6 =D0=B0=D0=B2=D0=B3. 2017 =D0=B3., =D0=B2 16:30, Dan Ackroyd <danack@base=
reality.com> =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
>=20
> Andrew Nester wrote:
>> I am thinking about writing an RFC for this and continue discussion there=
.
>> Will it be a good idea?
>=20
> You're apparently not very good at listening to suggestions, so I'll
> be more direct.
>=20
> I think you're wasting people's time until you actually try seeing if
> PDO can be made to work with userland classes or not.
>=20
> The next step should be you (or anyone else) attempting to make the
> required changes to PDO to make it work, to discover what changes
> would be needed to allow using userland classes.
>=20
> If it isn't known what is needed to do to support it working, there is
> no point raising the RFC.
>=20
>=20
> Johannes Schl=C3=BCter wrote:
>> The actually question is: Why not?
>=20
> My understanding is that some of the internal code that calls userland
> functions and methods is basically bogus.
>=20
> I had a PR (which I haven't had the energy to get round to sorting
> out) to make the SPL call userland constructors correctly:
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1196
>=20
> My surprise level would be zero, if there were similar issues in PDO
> instantiating user classes, or other issues like the internal code
> accessing properties directly without going through method access.
>=20
> On the other hand, it might 'just work'.
>=20
> cheers
> Dan
> Ack

Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate this.

Yes, I understand what you mean.=20
Fixing using this PDO attribute will solve issue with persistent PDO and wil=
l allow to customize PDO in all cases.

But what I want to suggest is more straightforward way to customize PDO beha=
viour and have proper type hints at the same time, because at my opinion usi=
ng PDO attributes for customization is not very straightforward.

I shown you some examples of use cases of these interfaces. As I think examp=
le from Doctrine DBAL shows that this might be useful. Let me know if you wo=
uld like to see some others.

I would like to hear some arguments why my proposed solution will not work o=
r what exactly wrong with interfaces proposed and solution in general.

Thanks in advance.