Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35084 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 7111 invoked by uid 1010); 1 Feb 2008 22:37:53 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 7078 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2008 22:37:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Feb 2008 22:37:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain daylessday.org designates 89.208.40.236 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tony@daylessday.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 89.208.40.236 mail.daylessday.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [89.208.40.236] ([89.208.40.236:44559] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 33/B5-04011-04F93A74 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:37:53 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.34] (ppp85-140-255-0.pppoe.mtu-net.ru [85.140.255.0]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADADE64015F; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:37:49 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <47A39F3C.7050704@daylessday.org> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:37:48 +0300 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071114) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg CC: Marcus Boerger , pdo@lists.php.net, PHP Internals References: <37388396.20080201212653@marcus-boerger.de> <47A395BA.9020707@daylessday.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2 From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 02.02.2008 01:10, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote: > We change the rules all the time to fit the needs of PHP. Do we? > This may not be one of those times, or this may not be the way to go, but I think > the concept of having better support from database companies is one > that at least deserves the benefit of a dialog. Sure, that's what the "dialog" is - they asked if they could set their own rules and we said "no". That's what the discussion is - they've asked a question and got an answer. We've discussed it long enough to be sure, and the answer is "NO". > Furthermore, I think Marcus has contributed enough to PHP that he does > not deserve to hear that what would be good for PHP is for him to "go > away." Wait a second... "Somebody has contributed enough, so everybody should agree with him"? Do I get it right? I do respect Marcus (as well as everybody else, doesn't matter how big his/her contribution is), but this doesn't matter I agree. And I really do think that such an attempt to add a half-closed-source module into PHP project MUST be rejected, as it violates all the rules and basically sets a new rule: everybody can do anything he/she wants to do for no reason. > PDO opinions aside, I don't think any of us would actually > think that would put PHP in a more healthy situation. Openness is healthy. Adding new rules to make lawyers happy is not. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal