Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20360
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:43:17 +0100 (CET)
To: sk@webfactory.de
cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <818043770511250202s33938ec5k6fecff888c2316eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0511251139071.31280@localhost>
References: <7.0.0.16.2.20051124161240.0573e640@zend.com>
	<20051125034515.6fefa4e2@localhost.localdomain> <43867C6C.2010209@prohost.org>
	<20051125040950.26305e08@localhost.localdomain> <43869FC5.4060708@lerdorf.com>
	<20051125075501.79718ee6@localhost.localdomain> <1132903004.9936.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<pan.2005.11.25.07.40.45.515129@php.net> <1086017308.20051125091648@marcus-boerger.de>
	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0511251047430.31280@localhost>
	<818043770511250202s33938ec5k6fecff888c2316eb@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps out
	there)
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Sebastian Kugler wrote:

> Derick,
> 
> > you will break code that is out there.
> 
> do you have an idea how much code is "out there" that has classes 
> named "Date"?

No, I have no numbers, but there are definitely people who used that 
name out there (besides PEAR). PHP 5.1 does come with other changes in 
behavior though, which are all meant in the upgrade notes. Included here 
is the issue with the date class. 

(I know this only works in an ideal world:) Users should always evaluate 
if they can upgrade to the latest PHP version (x. or .y.) to see if 
there is any change in behavior, therefore it shouldn't be that much of 
a problem for people writing good applications. ISPs should know better 
than to upgrade immediately.

> Above all, you can definitely not introduce new classes in RC6!

It was oversighted, it should indeed have been done before rc1 (or rc2).

> And this date class doesn't even seem to provide any functionality, so
> that there would be an incentive (or even possibility) to migrate
> projects using PEAR::Date to the new Date class. Why did this class
> have to be crippled (i. e. deactivating its methods) BUT incorporated
> in 5.1 and why not before RC6?

It has class constants, so there is (some) functionality. Previously 
the constants were "DATE_ISO8601" and now they are date::ISO8601, this 
is something that I use in my code currently - this code is about to be 
released to the public. And if it was for me, this class *would* have 
had functionality and it has been ifdef'ed out in CVS for about 5 months 
now because it could stall the release.

Derick

-- 
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org