Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74706 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74145 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2014 12:30:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Jun 2014 12:30:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tyra3l@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tyra3l@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.192.42 mail-qg0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.192.42] ([209.85.192.42:44599] helo=mail-qg0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B0/31-64944-1DFBD835 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:30:10 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id q107so13197964qgd.29 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:30:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QRoJe4fJKXks7jOqUblrL2bzk4Jgl3E5uKys9i9U03Y=; b=LcA+kOLnOtyqhhrdZEsFdl8qgFNj2UH070wQStCAaDCsI00M753Gd/oNhqDqAEpR3f rlaUO+2Y3kRJjFP2IOTyNjo6zb7NroQ9PC4EKh4wr4L9QLWREiU5zfyQ13EQJOJxpvDH Yl4bTyJFvucdQI9DdlXWQnhZYh0Uq5tpL3skgcxxPk/+Hxfoers1ARj54veqYTauSrcQ Ov76M+F+BtX6mmqbsOU9vBKejFVgXPRKWlnszVkZ8Y+j01jnGpqhMS3kdpGt3l+1ECXW adhP/aAQR7VznQ3wU0e2rKl4OmQ+eeSilmOKwKiBXbhQnlZu2wHnCUpUnntjuZGz8ytv Qaaw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.66.193 with SMTP id o1mr61427867qai.43.1401798605990; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.17.77 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 05:30:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:30:05 +0200 Message-ID: To: Andrey Andreev Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2c0d4f4f41d04faedabca Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] question regarding #67309 From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs) --001a11c2c0d4f4f41d04faedabca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I wanted to ask what's our current consensus about feature requests lik= e > > this: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=3D67309 > > The requested function wouldn't provide anything which isn't currently > > available via ini_get(), but it would be a bit natural to expect a get > > method where a set exists. > > > > -- > > Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs > > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu > > Hi, > > We talked about this with Yasuo in regards to some ext/session stuff > (although it was about setters) and agreed on keeping ini_set() only. > He even wrote a quick RFC about it: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-ini-functions > > Yeah, but AFAIR we didn't come up with an agreement (other than reverting out a couple of new functions from PHP 5.6.0). > My opinion in general is that we don't need functions that duplicate > ini_set(), ini_get() for a particular setting and existing ones should > be removed in the future instead of adding more to complement them. No > idea what other people think about it though. > I agree that providing multiple ways to achive the same thing is not really useful. But we also have to decide whether or not it is worth the BC to remove some existing function only because one can already do the same thing via ini_set. Another (albeit maybe a bit far-fetched) aspect is that somebody could assume that he/she can restrict a setting via disabling the appropriate function(via disable_functions) while that can be bypassed through the ini_set or vica versa. So the more ways we provide for the same setting to be set it is more likely that somebody forgets protecting one of those. --=20 Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --001a11c2c0d4f4f41d04faedabca--