Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74708
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH7k2sM47fMGjJf=eSZGPGAtL33PNZKXvtMJA-FdPU0odg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH-PCH7=31s3Ff5ijQ4WnTq31oFYbc-VZKzqR0+Q7JR3KCk6ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZwqP0OUBQ0yUVor8LhCSNGZ_F9oJ9CmZZW-S2Wu4up12Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7k2sM47fMGjJf=eSZGPGAtL33PNZKXvtMJA-FdPU0odg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:46:00 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZyTxCZHkrk0zPZ5JBbyiXeJTbCEe5dJ4P+tzS6c7qe18Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] question regarding #67309
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I wanted to ask what's our current consensus about feature requests li=
ke
>> > 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).

We didn't indeed, I was just giving you partial feedback. :)

>> 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 real=
ly
> useful.
> But we also have to decide whether or not it is worth the BC to remove so=
me
> existing function only because one can already do the same thing via
> ini_set.

With work supposedly being started on PHP6, now is the right time to
make that decision. :)

> 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 lik=
ely
> that somebody forgets protecting one of those.

Exactly.

Cheers,
Andrey.