# [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2 - Thread: https://externals.io/message/35072 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/35072 - Started by Marcus Boerger on 2008-02-01T20:26:53+00:00 - Messages: 42 - Page 1 of 2: messages 1 to 25 (25 per page, add `?page=N` to the URL) - Next page: https://externals.io/message/35072.md?page=2 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #35072 — Marcus Boerger — 2008-02-01T20:26:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35072 Hello all, So after the initial uproar on last week's attempts to put parts of PHP development under the terms of a CLA, a bunch of us actually spent some time in finding solutions for one way or the other. I don't want to bother you with more details on the why. One thing for certain, we want PDO. As the reasoning, this was discussed enough, so I'll jump directly to my ideas for a solution. * Develop a PECL CLA that can optionally be used for PECL projects. * If necessary, adapt the PHP License, so that it works nicely together with the CLA. * The projects that want a CLA can choose between the PHP License or LGPL. * Change the PELC web site so that projects can opt-in to using the CLA. * Arrange it so that projects cannot drop the CLA flag. * Add a user/CLA/project table to the PHP user database, and use this in CVS ACLs. * Create a new CVS module php-default. * Move all extensions that can be disabled and are not required for others to PECL. * Link everything under php-src plus a default selection of extensions to php-default. * Let us once and for all ban CLAs from php-src aka PHP core. * Start developing PDO as part of CVS module php-src. Sorry for not writing this earlier. So how does this idea sound? Best regards, Marcus p.s.: Post comments as reply or here: http://blog.somabo.de/2008/02/we-want-pdo-don-we.html#links --- ## #35073 — Marco Tabini — 2008-02-01T20:44:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35073 · In reply to: #35072 Hey Marcus— > * Develop a PECL CLA that can optionally be used for PECL projects. > * If necessary, adapt the PHP License, so that it works nicely > together with the CLA. IMO (and FWIW), CLAs do not belong in any official php.net project. I have already explained the reason why in the past, so I won't repeat myself, but a CLA violates the basic principle under which everything "officially" PHP is developed, and it should not be allowed to enter the project in any way. Perhaps PDO2 can simply be an external project, maybe hosted at Sourceforge or some other such site? Marco --- ## #35074 — Pierre Joye — 2008-02-01T21:11:54+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35074 · In reply to: #35072 Hi, Globally -1. I'm against any CLA in php.net. It was a mistake in the first place to accept restricted modules. There is many repositories out there, and the companies that need a CLA also have the resources to create their own PECL channels. But they may not have the fantastic advantages brought by being in php.net, like QA, visibility, etc. Secondly it is not correct to mix the topics. PDO will have a future, no matter if we accept a CLA or not. The same companies (I would like to say, the company) will participate anyway. Their customers need it. I think this quote fits well in this thread: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #35078 — Antony Dovgal — 2008-02-01T21:57:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35078 · In reply to: #35072 > Sorry for not writing this earlier. So how does this idea sound? It sounds quite bad. If you want to do something good for PHP - either respect its rules, or go away. Changing the rules to fit your needs is not acceptable. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal --- ## #35080 — Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg — 2008-02-01T22:10:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35080 · In reply to: #35078 > > > […] > > It sounds quite bad. > > If you want to do something good for PHP - either respect its rules, or go away. > Changing the rules to fit your needs is not acceptable. I don't have a particular horse to back in this race, and I realize people are passionate on both sides, but can we please have a polite discussion on this topic? We change the rules all the time to fit the needs of PHP. This may not be one of those times, or this may not be the way to go, but I think the concept of having better support from database companies is one that at least deserves the benefit of a dialog. Clearly, there is an attempt from some people to listen to the vocal feedback on the original PDO CLA proposal and try to come up with an alternative. You may not still like it, which is totally your right, but it's not as if what he's saying is completely tone deaf to what's going on. Furthermore, I think Marcus has contributed enough to PHP that he does not deserve to hear that what would be good for PHP is for him to "go away." PDO opinions aside, I don't think any of us would actually think that would put PHP in a more healthy situation. Thanks. -adam -- adam@trachtenberg.com | http://www.trachtenberg.com author of o'reilly's "upgrading to php 5" and "php cookbook" avoid the holiday rush, buy your copies today! --- ## #35082 — Pierre Joye — 2008-02-01T22:20:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35082 · In reply to: #35080 On Feb 1, 2008 11:10 PM, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote: > > > > […] > > I don't have a particular horse to back in this race, and I realize > people are passionate on both sides, but can we please have a polite > discussion on this topic? There was nothing not polite in Tony's reply. > Furthermore, I think Marcus has contributed enough to PHP that he does > not deserve to hear that what would be good for PHP is for him to "go > away." PDO opinions aside, I don't think any of us would actually > think that would put PHP in a more healthy situation. The targets were these/this companies(y) pushing CLA in php.net when it is not necessary to contribute. It has been proven already since months on a nearly daily basis. For example: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/discuss/msgReader$268 and the numerous contributions from IBM people. -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #35084 — Antony Dovgal — 2008-02-01T22:37:48+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35084 · In reply to: #35080 > We change the rules all the time to fit the needs of PHP. Do we? > This may not be one of those times, or this may not be the way to go, but I think > the concept of having better support from database companies is one > that at least deserves the benefit of a dialog. Sure, that's what the "dialog" is - they asked if they could set their own rules and we said "no". That's what the discussion is - they've asked a question and got an answer. We've discussed it long enough to be sure, and the answer is "NO". > Furthermore, I think Marcus has contributed enough to PHP that he does > not deserve to hear that what would be good for PHP is for him to "go > away." Wait a second... "Somebody has contributed enough, so everybody should agree with him"? Do I get it right? I do respect Marcus (as well as everybody else, doesn't matter how big his/her contribution is), but this doesn't matter I agree. And I really do think that such an attempt to add a half-closed-source module into PHP project MUST be rejected, as it violates all the rules and basically sets a new rule: everybody can do anything he/she wants to do for no reason. > PDO opinions aside, I don't think any of us would actually > think that would put PHP in a more healthy situation. Openness is healthy. Adding new rules to make lawyers happy is not. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal --- ## #35088 — Marcus Boerger — 2008-02-01T23:51:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35088 · In reply to: #35082 Hello Pierre, in some places of the world what he wrote might be ok in the way he wrote it. In some this wouldn't be acceptable at all. Contributing to PHP for a long time now and knowing Tony I a) couldn't care less and b) guess I know what he wanted to say and prefer to understand it as such. Either way, this is a polictical & strategical move. One that has a bunch of implications for which most peolple would need to read three times at least to understand them all. marcus Friday, February 1, 2008, 11:20:33 PM, you wrote: > On Feb 1, 2008 11:10 PM, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg > wrote: > > […] > There was nothing not polite in Tony's reply. > > […] > The targets were these/this companies(y) pushing CLA in php.net when > it is not necessary to contribute. It has been proven already since > months on a nearly daily basis. > For example: > http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/discuss/msgReader$268 > and the numerous contributions from IBM people. > -- > Pierre > http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org Best regards, Marcus --- ## #35089 — Pierre Joye — 2008-02-02T00:17:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35089 · In reply to: #35088 > Hello Pierre, > > in some places of the world what he wrote might be ok in the way he > wrote it. In every places in the world you have to respect the existing rules and usages or you better have to leave if you don't want to. That does not mean that you can't have an influence on them once you are in. > In some this wouldn't be acceptable at all. Contributing to PHP > for a long time now and knowing Tony I a) couldn't care less and b) guess I > know what he wanted to say and prefer to understand it as such. c) you know exactly what he meant and who are (is) the target. > Either way, this is a polictical & strategical move. One that has a bunch of > implications for which most peolple would need to read three times at least > to understand them all. Exactly and I see absolutely nothing that can change my view or opinion on this topic. There is other very large projects out there where major or leading companies contribute, there is no CLA, there is no restriction. In some cases, they are even kept outside as long as they don't want to follow the usages and rules of the given projects. That being said, where are the complains? Who is actually pushing the CLA in? I mean outside Zend and related? Why did they not post something to actually explain their views? Or are they afraid to say that they can't support PHP if there is no CLA? Well, I would be afraid too, especially when I know that I have to support PHP anyway. At least if I want to keep my piece of the web cake . Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #35091 — Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg — 2008-02-02T00:52:57+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35091 · In reply to: #35084 > > > […] > > Do we? Sure. PHP 3 was dual licensed under the GPL. We introduced the Zend License. We moved the PHP Manual under an Open Publication License, which is not was it was originally licensed under. We introduced cvs karma to restrict who could modify which parts of the code without explicit permission from others. And that's just about licensing and access to source commits. We change technical things all the time. For example, when I started using PHP, there were no OO concepts and register_globals was On. Those changes to the essential nature of PHP also affect the community and were done based on the needs of PHP. Again, I am not saying we should change this here. I am just saying that PHP has changed over the years. Like many projects, it becomes more calcified over time, but there are changes. > > […] > > Sure, that's what the "dialog" is - they asked if they could set their > own rules and we said "no". > > That's what the discussion is - they've asked a question and got an > answer. We've discussed it long enough to be sure, and the answer > is "NO". Based on my readings, I know where your position is, but I don't think there is universal agreement on this. Heavens, we've spent more time discussing the name of ifsetor, and I know that's not as important as PDO in any aspect. > > […] > > Wait a second... "Somebody has contributed enough, so everybody > should agree with him"? Do I get it right? I must have explain myself poorly, as you get it wrong. What I am saying is that I felt your reply was rude because you told him that because he presented a different opinion to you with respect to PDO and a CLA, that it would be better off it he leaves PHP. That may not be what you meant, but I don't think we should be telling people that we want them to go. What we should be telling people is that we think this is not the most productive way to move PHP forward, which is what I would like to presume is the goal of everyone in the conversation. We may differ on how we should get there, but we would like to keep everyone involved if possible. > And I really do think that such an attempt to add a > half-closed-source module into PHP project MUST be rejected, as it > violates all the rules and basically sets a new rule: everybody can > do anything he/she wants to do for no reason. That's totally fine. I don't have problems with that. What I am saying is that I have a problem with *how* you are saying this. This may be cultural, or even personal, but I felt it was important to express my opinion. > > […] > > Openness is healthy. > Adding new rules to make lawyers happy is not. We have rules to make lawyers happy already -- we call this the PHP License. You just happen to like those rules. We could bring in RMS and he could tell that that your rules are evil, just as you feel that a CLA is evil. (I know I am putting words in people's mouths here, forgive me.) So, we're not discussing whether we should have rules to make lawyers happy, we're discussing which rules we should have, and whether the rules we currently use and the best rules for going forward. Again, I am not saying whether we should or should not have a CLA for PDO, and where PDO should live. I have an opinion, but, frankly, that is not what I am trying to comment on here. What I am trying to do is keep the level of the dialog on a constructive basis. -adam -- adam@trachtenberg.com | http://www.trachtenberg.com author of o'reilly's "upgrading to php 5" and "php cookbook" avoid the holiday rush, buy your copies today! --- ## #35096 — Richard Quadling — 2008-02-02T11:15:23+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35096 · In reply to: #35091 If there is no CLA, will that mean we will not get the PDO 2 drivers we need to be able to communicate with the databases? Could, for example, MySQL say without a CLA we are not contributing code? If so, what is the alternatives? Wait until we have some hacked up version from someone not on the inside track? Its a shame that their is not a legal understanding of the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter of the law. If their is no CLA, what are the alternatives? -- ----- Richard Quadling Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731 "Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!" --- ## #35099 — Pierre Joye — 2008-02-02T11:55:59+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35099 · In reply to: #35096 Hi, > If there is no CLA, will that mean we will not get the PDO 2 drivers > we need to be able to communicate with the databases? It would be really nice if the pro CLA camp stops to condition the existence of PDO (or its future) to the CLA acceptation. That's simply wrong. Oracle, IBM and MySql (which states their point already, they will accept the choice made by the php project) contribute already to php. The question is actually: Can they continue to ignore PHP or do they have to have their respective products working smoothly with PHP? The answer is pretty obvious and we see announces on a regular basis to proove they have to support PHP. Read the respective interviews or stories about PHP, the tone is completely different now than a year ago. -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #35101 — Marcus Boerger — 2008-02-02T12:50:24+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35101 Hello Wez, keeping the discussion on this list is a major mistake. And it is actually the reason why everyone outside this list is against it. And whether you read blogs or not does not interest anybody at all - unless you are going to comment on every single blog that mentions PHP and CLA. So far PHP is open source! Respect this please!! Open means open!!! I am crossposting to internals again. People should know what is going on. Otherwise we could simply sign NDAs and be done. marcus Saturday, February 2, 2008, 6:36:17 AM, you wrote: > > > […] > On the contrary, there's been plenty of discussion going on. Despite > my request that we keep the discussion on this list, people have been > talking to each other in real life, on the phone, talking on IRC, IM, > posting thoughts and comments to blogs and so forth. Some comments > positive, some negative, but discussion nonetheless. > I've been making an effort to read the various blog entries, even > those in foreign languages (thanks to a combination of blog searching > tools and google translation tools) and keep an eye on IRC when I have > a spare minute or two. > > […] > No, I didn't say that there's no problem, I said that this sounds > reasonable. > For example, a problem with this general solution is still that > database experts from multiple sources would not be able to directly > co-operate on the PDO core. However, it sounds to me like a > reasonable (though sub-optimal, from a technical and productivity > point of view) compromise to be able to accept feedback and > suggestions and have those gated through the PDO core maintainers. > That's just my opinion; I certainly don't speak for anyone else. > > […] > One reason that no one has discussed that is because it is not > directly related to the question of PDO and how to best get the > vendors involved. Once we've figured that out, we can iron out the > details of the implementation. > > […] > And that's well beyond the scope of PDO. Remember, one of the > concerns raised by the community was that this business would > interfere with the rest of PHP; the suggestions we've made so far have > been intentionally very focused to avoid getting into that. > Again; first let's see if we can find an acceptable way to take their > contributions before moving on to those finer points. > > […] > We talked about whether the various vendors could work on various > combinations of pieces of the code if they were or were not CLA'd. > I'm sure you don't really need me to list the various combinations of > CLA, not CLA, in PHP, in PECL, outside of PHP, and hosted individually > by the vendors. It was not a very exciting discussion. > The main realization was that the vendors could not co-operate with > each other on code without a CLA in place, and that some of them would > not be able to co-operate with the community without a CLA in place. > --Wez. Best regards, Marcus --- ## #35103 — Pierre Joye — 2008-02-02T13:30:34+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35103 · In reply to: #35101 Hi, I think the biggest myths in this CLA discussion are: > > […] and: > > […] The history of open sources and free softwares (generally speaking, not specifically FSF) tells us that they can work without restrictions, of any form. If one has doubts, he can look at the X.org projects or any other areas where NDA and CLA are (I can soon say "were") a must have. Almost all vendors are now opening theirs specs and collaborate with the respective open source projects. Their teams even provide patches and improvements on a regular basis. How does it happen? The project leaders knew that vendors will have no choice in the end. The problem with php is that we are easily influenced by a couple of big companies. A couple of invitation here, some special events there and suddenly the old evil is becoming our best friends. But they were not the evil, they are also not out best friends. They simply do their jobs, keep their market share using all well known marketing actions (that's not badly meant). -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #35105 — Steph Fox — 2008-02-02T17:06:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35105 · In reply to: #35101 Be fair, this is an open list. Anyone can join it, and it keeps the noise levels down on internals@. Please? ;) http://news.php.net/php.pdo - Steph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Boerger" To: "Wez Furlong" Cc: "Steph Fox" ; ; Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:50 PM Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2 > Hello Wez, > > keeping the discussion on this list is a major mistake. And it is > actually > the reason why everyone outside this list is against it. And whether you > read blogs or not does not interest anybody at all - unless you are going > to > comment on every single blog that mentions PHP and CLA. So far PHP is open > source! Respect this please!! Open means open!!! > > I am crossposting to internals again. People should know what is going on. > Otherwise we could simply sign NDAs and be done. > > marcus > > Saturday, February 2, 2008, 6:36:17 AM, you wrote: > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > […] > > > > > Best regards, > Marcus --- ## #35107 — Pierre Joye — 2008-02-02T18:53:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35107 > Pierre, > > At no point have I or anyone else said that the future of PDO depends > on a CLA. > > --Wez. No, you did not say it explicitally. However you said that many vendors, experts or leaders will not contribute or will not support PDO if there is no CLA in place. Many persons interpret it as: PDO will not support any proprietary databases if we don't have a CLA, or will stop to support them (because the vendors will not contribute). That's simply not true and I do think that we should clarify this point. That's what I said in my reply to Richard. It is also wrong to say that they can't contribute without CLA while they do contribute already in all possible ways. The more I think and read about this topic the more I think that the only companies or persons looking for CLA in php are you. Neither IBM or Oracle stopped to contribute. Microsoft never actually contributed to PHP directly but that did not prevent them to work on their FCGI implementation for IIS and it works very well. MySql does not need it, Postgresql neither... -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #35111 — Jani Taskinen — 2008-02-02T19:59:24+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35111 · In reply to: #35099 Pierre, since you choose to ignore the mails I sent to your "secret" address, I'm taking this to the list, maybe this will be noticed: Pay what you owe me! --Jani Pierre Joye kirjoitti: > Hi, > > > > […] > > It would be really nice if the pro CLA camp stops to condition the > existence of PDO (or its future) to the CLA acceptation. That's simply > wrong. Oracle, IBM and MySql (which states their point already, they > will accept the choice made by the php project) contribute already to > php. > > The question is actually: > > Can they continue to ignore PHP or do they have to have their > respective products working smoothly with PHP? > > The answer is pretty obvious and we see announces on a regular basis > to proove they have to support PHP. Read the respective interviews or > stories about PHP, the tone is completely different now than a year > ago. --- ## #35115 — Lester Caine — 2008-02-02T20:45:27+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35115 · In reply to: #35105 Steph Fox wrote: > Be fair, this is an open list. Anyone can join it, and it keeps the > noise levels down on internals@. Please? ;) > > http://news.php.net/php.pdo Move all of PDO over to there and let those of us who have not found any reason to need to switch to it get on with fully open source development :) Perhaps if PDO actually added some value there there would not be a problem, but we still need something sensible wrapping it to make cross database SQL work so why do I need to bother changing the internals of what I have been working with for years just to 'fix half of the problem' with a solution at is still showing a significant decrease in performance over native drivers managed transparently in ADOdb. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php --- ## #35157 — Derick Rethans — 2008-02-04T08:58:13+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35157 · In reply to: #35072 > * Develop a PECL CLA that can optionally be used for PECL projects. > * If necessary, adapt the PHP License, so that it works nicely > together with the CLA. > * The projects that want a CLA can choose between the PHP License or > LGPL. > * Change the PELC web site so that projects can opt-in to using the > CLA. > * Arrange it so that projects cannot drop the CLA flag. > * Add a user/CLA/project table to the PHP user database, and use this > in CVS ACLs. > * Create a new CVS module php-default. > * Move all extensions that can be disabled and are not required for > others to PECL. > * Link everything under php-src plus a default selection of > extensions to php-default. > * Let us once and for all ban CLAs from php-src aka PHP core. > * Start developing PDO as part of CVS module php-src. > > Sorry for not writing this earlier. So how does this idea sound? Not terrible good actually. ALl the things that mention a CLA should never come close to PHP or PECL in my opinion. If people want to develop non-open software they can use their own resources for it. regards, Derick --- ## #35164 — Andrey Hristov — 2008-02-04T09:30:56+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35164 · In reply to: #35103 Hi, Pierre Joye wrote: > Hi, > > I think the biggest myths in this CLA discussion are: > > > […] > > and: > > > […] > > > The history of open sources and free softwares (generally speaking, > not specifically FSF) tells us that they can work without > restrictions, of any form. > > If one has doubts, he can look at the X.org projects or any other > areas where NDA and CLA are (I can soon say "were") a must have. > Almost all vendors are now opening theirs specs and collaborate with > the respective open source projects. Their teams even provide patches > and improvements on a regular basis. How does it happen? The project > leaders knew that vendors will have no choice in the end. > > The problem with php is that we are easily influenced by a couple of > big companies. A couple of invitation here, some special events there > and suddenly the old evil is becoming our best friends. But they were > not the evil, they are also not out best friends. They simply do their > jobs, keep their market share using all well known marketing actions > (that's not badly meant). > I am following the PDO2 threads since they appeared and stood silent as Jay (Pipes) jumped on explaining the MySQL position. In this email I speak my _personal_ opinion. 1) Was there a problem with having different DB modules all these years? I think - no! 2) Was there a problem of having PDO1 with different DB modules? The core is clean, the modules are buggy but imagine how all these things work without even a specification. Actually the specs appeared as part of the PDO2 discussion. Now there is a spec and it should be non-CLA or we should invent one that is non-CLA-ed from the most common behavior of the drivers. The the DB vendors should go and fix what they have, or pay someone to do it, or risk an entry on the wall of shame. Andrey --- ## #35474 — Christopher Jones — 2008-02-14T01:48:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35474 · In reply to: #35082 Pierre Joye wrote: > The targets were these/this companies(y) pushing CLA in php.net when > it is not necessary to contribute. It has been proven already since > months on a nearly daily basis. > > For example: > http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/discuss/msgReader$268 My understanding is that because of its collaborative nature, contributing to PDO V2 has new and very different implications. Arguments using past contributions to show the ad-hoc development model is feasible are (unfortunately) not tenable. Chris -- Christopher Jones, Oracle Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com Tel: +1 650 506 8630 Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/ Free PHP Book: http://tinyurl.com/f8jad --- ## #35473 — Christopher Jones — 2008-02-14T01:48:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35473 · In reply to: #35115 Lester Caine wrote: > Perhaps if PDO actually added some value there there would not be a > problem, but we still need something sensible wrapping it to make cross > database SQL work so why do I need to bother changing the internals of > what I have been working with for years just to 'fix half of the > problem' with a solution at is still showing a significant decrease in > performance over native drivers managed transparently in ADOdb. You miss the unstated implication that PDO V2 will offer par or better performance, and potentially more functionality. Chris -- Christopher Jones, Oracle Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com Tel: +1 650 506 8630 Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/ Free PHP Book: http://tinyurl.com/f8jad --- ## #35475 — Pierre Joye — 2008-02-14T02:13:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35475 · In reply to: #35474 Hi Chris, > > > Pierre Joye wrote: > > […] > > My understanding is that because of its collaborative nature, > contributing to PDO V2 has new and very different implications. You mean its collaborative and restrictive nature? > Arguments using past contributions to show the ad-hoc development > model is feasible are (unfortunately) not tenable Again, please see my other posts. Since my last post, nothing has been brought to the list to clarify the situation. Important questions like who is asking a CLA, who will contribute and what will be brought on board? Why did they not take contact with us? All these questions are without answer and until they got one, I will not change my mind for a yota (and I doubt any oposant will). -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #35476 — Christopher Jones — 2008-02-14T02:30:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35476 · In reply to: #35475 Pierre Joye wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > > […] > > You mean its collaborative and restrictive nature? No - its collaborative nature. > > > […] > > Again, please see my other posts. Since my last post, nothing has been > brought to the list to clarify the situation. Important questions like > who is asking a CLA That has already been stated. This is not an "us and them" situation since each party has different requirements. > who will contribute and what will be brought on board? That has also been stated: expertise and person-power. The fine points will depend on the community, a term that includes data access providers (I'm using that name since not all are actual "vendors"), and the model the community chooses to accept. > Why did they not take contact with us? We did. It just took a very long time. Think of it as a normal "is this idea possible" chat that took place in very, very, very slow motion. Chris -- Christopher Jones, Oracle Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com Tel: +1 650 506 8630 Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/ Free PHP Book: http://tinyurl.com/f8jad --- ## #35477 — Pierre Joye — 2008-02-14T02:43:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/35072#35477 · In reply to: #35476 Hi Chris, > > > Pierre Joye wrote: > > […] > > No - its collaborative nature. > > > […] > > That has already been stated. This is not an "us and them" > situation since each party has different requirements. > > > […] > > That has also been stated: expertise and person-power. I think you are taking for a brain dead or some stupid PR out there. Please answer the questions, don't give me buzz words to make a point. > The fine points will depend on the community, a term that includes data > access providers (I'm using that name since not all are actual "vendors"), > and the model the community chooses to accept. > > > […] > > We did. It just took a very long time. Think of it as a normal "is > this idea possible" chat that took place in very, very, very slow motion. There is no discussion, there is no chat. You (as group) simply refuse to answer the most obvious questions. Tell us the names of these entities, companies or persons, who are going to contribute and what are actually their requirements. What will they bring (saying "expertise" is not something I can buy)? I don't understand what is so hard to understand that it is a minimum to get before we can even discuss the CLA introduction. Let alone the fact that they don't consider us as good enough as discussions partner. Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- Next page: https://externals.io/message/35072.md?page=2