Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35091 php.pdo:75
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain trachtenberg.com from 216.93.242.2 cause and error)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:52:57 -0500 (EST)
To: Antony Dovgal <tony@daylessday.org>
cc: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>, pdo@lists.php.net, 
    PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <47A39F3C.7050704@daylessday.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0802011931010.5274@miranda.org>
References: <37388396.20080201212653@marcus-boerger.de> <47A395BA.9020707@daylessday.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0802011702490.15624@miranda.org> <47A39F3C.7050704@daylessday.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2
From: adam@trachtenberg.com (Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Antony Dovgal wrote:

> 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?

Sure. PHP 3 was dual licensed under the GPL. We introduced the Zend
License. We moved the PHP Manual under an Open Publication License,
which is not was it was originally licensed under. We introduced cvs
karma to restrict who could modify which parts of the code without
explicit permission from others.

And that's just about licensing and access to source commits.

We change technical things all the time. For example, when I started
using PHP, there were no OO concepts and register_globals was
On. Those changes to the essential nature of PHP also affect the
community and were done based on the needs of PHP.

Again, I am not saying we should change this here. I am just saying
that PHP has changed over the years. Like many projects, it becomes
more calcified over time, but there are changes.

> > 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".

Based on my readings, I know where your position is, but I don't think
there is universal agreement on this. Heavens, we've spent more time
discussing the name of ifsetor, and I know that's not as important as
PDO in any aspect.

> > 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 must have explain myself poorly, as you get it wrong. What I am
saying is that I felt your reply was rude because you told him that
because he presented a different opinion to you with respect to PDO
and a CLA, that it would be better off it he leaves PHP. That may not
be what you meant, but I don't think we should be telling people that
we want them to go.

What we should be telling people is that we think this is not the most
productive way to move PHP forward, which is what I would like to
presume is the goal of everyone in the conversation. We may differ on
how we should get there, but we would like to keep everyone involved
if possible.

> 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.

That's totally fine. I don't have problems with that. What I am saying
is that I have a problem with *how* you are saying this. This may be
cultural, or even personal, but I felt it was important to express my
opinion.

> > 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.

We have rules to make lawyers happy already -- we call this the PHP
License. You just happen to like those rules.

We could bring in RMS and he could tell that that your rules are evil,
just as you feel that a CLA is evil. (I know I am putting words in
people's mouths here, forgive me.)

So, we're not discussing whether we should have rules to make lawyers
happy, we're discussing which rules we should have, and whether the
rules we currently use and the best rules for going forward.

Again, I am not saying whether we should or should not have a CLA for
PDO, and where PDO should live. I have an opinion, but, frankly, that
is not what I am trying to comment on here.

What I am trying to do is keep the level of the dialog on a
constructive basis.

-adam

-- 
adam@trachtenberg.com | http://www.trachtenberg.com
author of o'reilly's "upgrading to php 5" and "php cookbook"
avoid the holiday rush, buy your copies today!