Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:31457 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 952 invoked by uid 1010); 4 Aug 2007 06:41:24 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 937 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2007 06:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Aug 2007 06:41:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.20.145 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.123.20.145 c2bthomr13.btconnect.com Received: from [213.123.20.145] ([213.123.20.145:27465] helo=c2bthomr13.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B1/22-05091-19F14B64 for ; Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:41:22 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by c2bthomr13.btconnect.com with ESMTP id DCS73585; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 07:41:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <46B41FD7.404@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:42:31 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.5) Gecko/20070716 SeaMonkey/1.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP internals References: <87E4F8AF-06DE-4FCC-AD1B-83E932A5E180@prohost.org> <46B2DDDB.6020801@lsces.co.uk> <46B2E196.4080400@zend.com> <46B2FF97.3080302@lsces.co.uk> <46B3049E.5080309@zend.com> <46B37FBB.5030803@quipo.it> <46B382E6.9000600@lsces.co.uk> <46B39172.6060300@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.2.4RC1 Released From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Pierre wrote: > And what do you suggest to improve this situation? One of my > suggestions is to have more DB developers (as in DB internals, if I > can say so :) involved. Oracle and IBM (to name the largest and most > active) understood that and actively participate. And IBM have a commercial interest in making it easy for them to sell licenses, so they support EVERY well used development platform ;) Since a large percentage of their server users were probably running free copies of PHP anyway, they saw a support revenue stream? > I'm not saying that > you do nothing, but I'm not sure that complaining about the bad state > of pdo_firebird is really helpful. See the other post. I am not 'complaining' about the fact that no one is willing to spend unpaid time on pdo_firebird, just trying to explain WHY. If the Firebird Foundation had the deep pockets of IBM, Oracle, MySQL etc. then we would actually PAY someone to do it, but for now it has to have a reason to be worked on and no one has a reason :( THAT is why the damage to the php_interbase driver was such a problem! -- 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