Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98597
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b328c653-35d5-4871-8d09-580af5dd02d1@lsces.co.uk>
References: <CADxrgCP4Mt=Jh_zi2qOXEyt2DTbnDFUb2gkxHg8NgeECL5j8_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADxrgCNsAOcdsi1e6QJbQYPn4NM_aBKWh_EHV37cA7OviTpHFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sKw5FUd1-kP3CWYfMBdTdGKN8fc7GSvtgFin5yYE-H_gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <15fa63cb-6ca6-b809-20b8-5b0e2d357b29@gmx.de> <1304f0ec-2957-2fd0-070e-9f096e3fbb6a@gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4Nraq91MZHWNoGTzcothTGcZJSFHYkNttt7CKR5=kH-LQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAFGhPhb5DSirS_-7T2xbnZs7wi50TahT6+prWv26US=zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3aa0cb2a-4142-046e-d69f-b5481384099b@gmail.com> <CAEKnhAF-kJDf0FsN-SuKDd3=4vEC3RNYJbQDpk42zmZyGGkzcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b302f58e-02fa-00cf-b976-fdf132187662@gmail.com> <b328c653-35d5-4871-8d09-580af5dd02d1@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 01:25:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CADyq6sKB8Z=G1qoTxNUhiLpu8B4ZrmrRT65P+PYk6-e=61WaUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0856d487010b054b1e9212
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Extended String Types For PDO
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--94eb2c0856d487010b054b1e9212
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> 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 ...
>

Given that most installs of Doctrine DBAL (80%+) rely on PDO MySQL, that's
quite a lot of users: https://packagist.org/packages/doctrine/dbal/stats

PDO is currently the leading DB abstraction in PHP projects, regardless of
how horrible its API is.

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius

http://ocramius.github.com/

--94eb2c0856d487010b054b1e9212--