Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64089
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.210.42 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <50B6C097.5010402@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:55:35 +1100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
CC: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
 Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>,
 Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, 
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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> <CAAyV7nGoV0Q78V6sRTNkiwsj3mZDWdJyFpDgexPe7r7B4xe8=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOpQSzyCjMH2Rvo4n0kgbugzvwRga4SnO4URR2uqoTefG3Z6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSzyCjMH2Rvo4n0kgbugzvwRga4SnO4URR2uqoTefG3Z6g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] ext/mysql deprecation in 5.5
From: davidkmuir@gmail.com (David Muir)

On 29/11/12 07:33, Kris Craig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> I think we're over-complicating this a bit.  The whole point of
> E_DEPRECATED is to get people to stop using an obsolete feature before it's
> removed (or moved to PECL or whatever; neither of which is in the scope of
> this RFC anyway).  Documentation and whatnot can only accomplish so much.
>
> We also know that E_DEPRECATED works when other approaches do not.  I would
> point you all to the famous example of Drupal 7, which would break
> completely due to a flurry of E_DEPRECATED warnings (if display_errors was
> set to on) being triggered as of 5.3 due to their continued use of
> magic_quotes_gpc and magic_quotes_runtime.  When Drupal 8 was released some
> time later, the code was fixed so that it no longer used those out-dated
> functions.
>
> That's why I voted yes.
>
> --Kris
>

Kris,

There was no "ext/magic_quotes" that was retired to PECL. You're 
comparing apples with oranges.

David