Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98596 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 180 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2017 23:57:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Mar 2017 23:57:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk designates 185.153.204.204 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 185.153.204.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [185.153.204.204] ([185.153.204.204:44768] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B4/F5-18522-6FA1FC85 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:57:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 21907 invoked by uid 89); 19 Mar 2017 23:57:39 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 21901, pid: 21904, t: 0.0458s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.7?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 19 Mar 2017 23:57:39 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <15fa63cb-6ca6-b809-20b8-5b0e2d357b29@gmx.de> <1304f0ec-2957-2fd0-070e-9f096e3fbb6a@gmail.com> <3aa0cb2a-4142-046e-d69f-b5481384099b@gmail.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 23:57:39 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Extended String Types For PDO From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 19/03/17 23:11, Rowan Collins wrote: >> Sorry but I just don't agree with that. We are talking about a feature >> for PDO that not many voters is interested in. That's completely >> different than a language change. The interest in other core >> extensions is often the same. > > Fair points. I'm not sure the RFC process as a whole works well for > specialist decisions - the same has come up with very technical Engine > changes. While PDO has gained some traction and some projects have switched over to it, it would be useful to see what percentage of users do actually take the PDO route and and those that still stay with other abstraction options or remain with the generic drivers. My own preference is still to ignore it as a base and stick with ADOdb, which does seem to be growing again in support, but many projects have their own abstraction layers which don't rely on PDO or for the likes of things like wordpress only support MySQL anyway so don't need a cross database layer. None of the 'improvements' added to PDO recently do anything to improve it's standing, it still lacks a real reason for existing ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk