Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78147
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPhkiZyTxCZHkrk0zPZ5JBbyiXeJTbCEe5dJ4P+tzS6c7qe18Q@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>
	<CAPhkiZyTxCZHkrk0zPZ5JBbyiXeJTbCEe5dJ4P+tzS6c7qe18Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:34:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH5K6R4Jr_-x35LL6YhWDgDg-DLvTSSyB-N0MTjUc8iyUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c21caa7f133a0505a01baa
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] question regarding #67309
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a11c21caa7f133a0505a01baa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:

> 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
> like
> >> > this: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=3D67309
> >> > The requested function wouldn't provide anything which isn't current=
ly
> >> > available via ini_get(), but it would be a bit natural to expect a g=
et
> >> > 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 reverti=
ng
> > 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
> 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.
>
> 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
> likely
> > that somebody forgets protecting one of those.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrey.
>

resurrecting this thread in the hope of getting a bit more feedback.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a11c21caa7f133a0505a01baa--