Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121752 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 23979 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2023 04:33:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2023 04:33:13 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD2C18003B for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 20:33:15 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,DMARC_PASS,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-pj1-f49.google.com (mail-pj1-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 20:33:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2851b271e51so347987a91.1 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 20:33:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700627589; x=1701232389; darn=lists.php.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rI67EgF930zcBblIF08y+3KGwALWYkDBjQ6o8LLnA3k=; b=m5GSxRr9BQ6mOgjNnzrFcP3pvK0bl6f8A665BIuY0mXGXCEztmK/dSeCRqT+7pQ9/n xwMqShlpfKwukEAYhgHqazSSgkl7fnMm+8gx88Qpg33AJP/Kdv0xqoHbLyEvNvYNj05b 7VNie7ieSPfHzwnTuu+lBdFQtdovsTyNepxVTE29q+bLrlBEQqzlL3qi9ExzGIv40a8m zOEzMMlVJRdqBUjG6spTgS5zfOYVo7K/IsSaEZySfiWEQBqQP0aELnOUfSxN6rJh5iA2 gyVSdIxDv4r4awT8NUiF0KKUk9Vo22NMYJLBaG5FgILfmnxBZEJkEb9J+LTRjoIPP4kt I1BA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700627589; x=1701232389; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=rI67EgF930zcBblIF08y+3KGwALWYkDBjQ6o8LLnA3k=; b=cRDixq6ACeTZ2aU270MhXYS7hJWkhc18GqdZ6aurM/qddur9m+e2o78A0LXwuiqWdS pHX3iuqzbZaoSc6lojNNcdsInRBiejX1SiuFOnpbByf1h6EZijzMp10B4zGjwCK+P263 NOfk2xtcwbdu8+dV1eUX4/it5WzesaF1bxS4uQxsoINT6vobhwfzHOUptpNoQLzNPDnW 0osiHeXkfL7wHQ0KWdE+9YP8Jv4hGnwL47zPsS/yH4pJGWKLunhYc10SZtOZvf0c/nV/ yJj2vAliLadChW0stAF/RmFDrAm4Njpj/d2TIATp2WEIxqmBtw/6WNXG5LY+DVg6ZKMA tx8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YypVxL+6dHpWNAG8wQJWfNU4wVFwKSjYgUGGv4nyE7PX/2ufnZx G7X1/mT6ploiCRGDzC3xUg3neVsC/YX5VimNH3E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFFtAZtR2O8isON5f/jkBTcWIHLD/G5wMPXXdOSTO1kQ9maYShRbFXgtgEARpaIPZ0kpO42QONHq8BSpTIuyrw= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1247:b0:285:eb8:b6f5 with SMTP id gx7-20020a17090b124700b002850eb8b6f5mr7175015pjb.0.1700627588855; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 20:33:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 04:32:57 +0000 Message-ID: To: Jakub Zelenka Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= , PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000543f3e060ab6372e" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Resource to object conversion From: george.banyard@gmail.com ("G. P. B.") --000000000000543f3e060ab6372e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 16:13, Jakub Zelenka wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 4:48=E2=80=AFPM M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis > wrote: > > > Hi Internals, > > > > Following my straw poll about the Process resource name, I would like t= o > > present an RFC which clarifies the rough timeline and the BC promises o= f > > the "resource to object conversion" project. > > > > Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/resource_to_object_conversion > > > > > Please could you add a separate vote for primary streams if the resource = to > object conversion should be done at all (requiring 2/3 votes to be > accepted). I will personally vote against this if there is no is_resource > change as I think it's just too big BC break even for 9.0 - it will likel= y > require massive update of many code bases. > What is the point of a major release if we cannot even do such a BC break? We don't even know when PHP 9.0 is going to happen yet. I will also state that I am against changing the semantics of is_resource() *unless* we remove support for resources altogether from the engine at the same time so that there is no possible ambiguity. Which frankly is probably something we should be doing, and that people paid by the foundation should convert resources to opaque objects in PECL extensions, and other extensions brought to our attention. And yes, that also means helping Oracle with OCI8 that is getting unbundled= . I will try to get round to do ext/dba somewhat soon. Best regards, Gina P. Banyard --000000000000543f3e060ab6372e--