Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39528 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32873 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2008 10:41:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Aug 2008 10:41:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=scott@macvicar.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=scott@macvicar.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain macvicar.net from 193.227.246.108 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: scott@macvicar.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 193.227.246.108 ip246-108-v193.static.x-ip.net Received: from [193.227.246.108] ([193.227.246.108:43136] helo=lovelace.midden.org.uk) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 80/D1-21097-168E2984 for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:41:38 -0400 Received: from office.vbulletin.com ([217.155.246.60] helo=[10.0.0.116]) by lovelace.midden.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOs4i-0008GO-Is; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:41:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4892E856.6090108@macvicar.net> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:41:26 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Antony Dovgal CC: php-dev References: <4892E15D.1080004@daylessday.org> <4892E37B.8060804@macvicar.net> <4892E5DD.50907@daylessday.org> In-Reply-To: <4892E5DD.50907@daylessday.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.3 X-Spam_Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "lovelace.midden.org.uk", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Antony Dovgal wrote: > On 01.08.2008 14:20, Scott MacVicar wrote: >> ext/pdo_sqlite and ext/sqlite3 use the same underlying lib so its just >> another wrapper but without the PDO crap on top. > > I know, I know. > But why enable it by default (as well as PDO_SQLITE)? What's so > extremely useful in this extension that every user needs it? [...] Content analysis details: (-4.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] enabling everything by default From: scott@macvicar.net (Scott MacVicar) Antony Dovgal wrote: > On 01.08.2008 14:20, Scott MacVicar wrote: >> ext/pdo_sqlite and ext/sqlite3 use the same underlying lib so its just >> another wrapper but without the PDO crap on top. > > I know, I know. > But why enable it by default (as well as PDO_SQLITE)? What's so > extremely useful in this extension that every user needs it? The zero configuration aspect, the ability to just throw up a database in place of your own over complicated storage format. Sure all hosts have MySQL but if you're shipping a product then sometimes its simpler to just bundle a SQLite DB. Clientside apps are also moving forward with SQLite, Firefox 3.0, Google Gears, Adobe AIR and just about every Apple product. I've been writing PHP scripts to start using the data. I'm happy to disable PDO by default and have you force it on like mysql or any of the others. > >> If you have ideas on testing without enabling them or bundling in the >> build please do share. It's a chicken and egg situtation imho. > > Testing doesn't require enabling it by default. > In fact, it doesn't even require putting the extension in the core, > though this surely increases the the amount of feedback. > Developers should test their extensions, not users. > Yep, we're already using it here in several applications and I have a few side projects using it. Test coverage was good, about 80%. I'll be doing more before alpha 2. Scott