Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64080
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACwt+JeuSo7TOyVLUMhvQPx2duPi9aDw=HZ=qgknKi+5kVP8VA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADajX4BRUFUb_Wp2a40d2vwXHeMmO611Sqrv7=oxbLHag9qOyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADajX4B3RctPoodShRhLLyDQW8-QFaCBOU+6PjL0FDHPGYBtzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50B5D992.30609@lsces.co.uk>
	<CACwt+JeuSo7TOyVLUMhvQPx2duPi9aDw=HZ=qgknKi+5kVP8VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:43:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nGoV0Q78V6sRTNkiwsj3mZDWdJyFpDgexPe7r7B4xe8=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>
Cc: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041825880adaa604cf90df9e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] ext/mysql deprecation in 5.5
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--f46d041825880adaa604cf90df9e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Patrick,


Sorry, but removing the E_DEPRECATED notice when moved to PECL is not
> part of the proposed RFC and should certainly not happen.
>

The proposal doesn't actually propose anything about a move to PECL. It's
listed in the "possible future actions" section exactly once. But the RFC
doesn't take a stand on it in either direction. So I'm not sure that you
can make that argument.

> Adding it in one location and not the other does
> > not make sense.
>
> Absolutely! There is no reason to remove that kind of notice in the future.
>

That's your opinion. Please realize it as such and that other viewpoints
also exist.

For example, I have the viewpoint that deprecation applies to the LANGUAGE.
The inclusion of the extension in the language is what's being deprecated.
Even after it's pulled, someone else can maintain it. We can say that you
should avoid it, but there's nothing stoping someone else from continuing
maintenance of it as a fork. And adding in the other missing functionality
(possibly breaking BC, possibly not, whatever).

Therefore, in my viewpoint, the deprecation notices only apply to the
inclusion of the extension in the core language distribution. Not to the
extension itself.

I'm not saying that either one of us is right or wrong, just that there are
other opinions. To keep this discussion productive, please refrain from
using absolutes like that...

Thanks

Anthony

--f46d041825880adaa604cf90df9e--