What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone the
existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird version that
actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the now incompatible
GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use Interbase in parallel with
Firebird, but the driver can only access one client :(
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
hi Lester,
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone the
existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird version that
actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the now incompatible
GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use Interbase in parallel with
Firebird, but the driver can only access one client :(
I wonder where ended our discussions about fixing firebird/interbase
issues on windows. Despite my reminders, I saw nothing from any of the
volunteers. It is very unlikely that I or any other will take care of
these drivers any time soon. That means that it is likely to do not be
present at all in 5.3.0+ (windows).
Cheers,
hi Lester,
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone the
existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird version that
actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the now incompatible
GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use Interbase in parallel with
Firebird, but the driver can only access one client :(I wonder where ended our discussions about fixing firebird/interbase
issues on windows. Despite my reminders, I saw nothing from any of the
volunteers. It is very unlikely that I or any other will take care of
these drivers any time soon. That means that it is likely to do not be
present at all in 5.3.0+ (windows).
I don't have any windows machine , do php group have one to share ? or
where do you build these things ?
I will try to setup an virtual machine with windows and all the rest
The only problem is now I'm looking for an job and i need to find an
job first :(
Cheers,
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org--
--
developer flamerobin.org
hi Lester,
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone the
existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird version that
actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the now incompatible
GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use Interbase in parallel with
Firebird, but the driver can only access one client :(I wonder where ended our discussions about fixing firebird/interbase
issues on windows. Despite my reminders, I saw nothing from any of the
volunteers. It is very unlikely that I or any other will take care of
these drivers any time soon. That means that it is likely to do not be
present at all in 5.3.0+ (windows).
The only bugs left are the one with blobs
http://bugs.php.net/search.php?cmd=display&status=Open&bug_type%5B%5D=InterBase+related
and i think the failed events tests from the extension directory
Please tell us what issues are still present on windows ?
I guess if you are on an windows machine is quite easy to install firebird
do an full build and send us the report
Cheers,
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org--
--
developer flamerobin.org
hi Lester,
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone the
existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird version that
actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the now incompatible
GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use Interbase in parallel with
Firebird, but the driver can only access one client :(I wonder where ended our discussions about fixing firebird/interbase
issues on windows. Despite my reminders, I saw nothing from any of the
volunteers. It is very unlikely that I or any other will take care of
these drivers any time soon. That means that it is likely to do not be
present at all in 5.3.0+ (windows).The only bugs left are the one with blobs
http://bugs.php.net/search.php?cmd=display&status=Open&bug_type%5B%5D=InterBase+relatedand i think the failed events tests from the extension directory
Please tell us what issues are still present on windows ?
No build are done and none are planed in a near future without a
significant effort from the actual users or developers of the
firebird/interbase drivers.
Cheers,
Pierre
Pierre Joye wrote:
hi Lester,
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone the
existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird version that
actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the now incompatible
GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use Interbase in parallel with
Firebird, but the driver can only access one client :(
I wonder where ended our discussions about fixing firebird/interbase
issues on windows. Despite my reminders, I saw nothing from any of the
volunteers. It is very unlikely that I or any other will take care of
these drivers any time soon. That means that it is likely to do not be
present at all in 5.3.0+ (windows).
The only bugs left are the one with blobs
http://bugs.php.net/search.php?cmd=display&status=Open&bug_type%5B%5D=InterBase+relatedand i think the failed events tests from the extension directory
Please tell us what issues are still present on windows ?
No build are done and none are planed in a near future without a
significant effort from the actual users or developers of the
firebird/interbase drivers.
The 5.2.6 Windows build is not NOW showing any of the problems introduced with
the changes to the 5.2.x builds. There MAY still be a problem with 64 bit
builds for Linux, but it's been difficult to actually prove anything.
So WHAT THE F**K are you expecting from us? We just need ANY windows 5.2.7
compilation to test, and the last 5.3.0 build was working fine but until the
'discussion' on other areas are concluded there seems little point doing any
further testing?
FIREBIRD has pulled somewhat further ahead and needs it's own build for that,
but there has still been no response on how we can achieve that! And until the
windows snapshot builds are actually being produced it's difficult to test
anything :(
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
hi Lester,
I'm not sure what else we can say but you should really read your mail
archives and the discussions we had 6 months ago about what we need to
get firebird support back in 5.3.0 windows binaries.
PHP 5.3.0 builds (releases or snapshots) have no firebird since day
#1, I wonder what you have tested.
FIREBIRD has pulled somewhat further ahead and needs it's own build for
that, but there has still been no response on how we can achieve that!
That's what we asked to have. We do not not use firebird, we have no
clue about the versions to use, the configuration or anything else. We
do not have the time and the resources to figure it out either and
that's why we asked you (as you Lester and the other person having
volunteered to provide the info) to provide these info.
Instead of talking about forks and pointing the stinky fingers to
internals (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-php/message/2561),
you may finally do some your home work.
Cheers,
Pierre
Pierre Joye wrote:
hi Lester,
I'm not sure what else we can say but you should really read your mail
archives and the discussions we had 6 months ago about what we need to
get firebird support back in 5.3.0 windows binaries.
WHAT IS STILL OUTSTANDING? We tested 5.2.x, identified the problems and WHEN I
windows build of 5.2.7RC appears we can test that! I'm not seeing anything
outstanding on the bug list for WINDOWS.
For people running Interbase AND Firebird we need to identify the different
clients but that is basically just a single line change in the code, so
perhaps we should be adding a switch for that rather than talking about a
separate port, however some people seem to want both running at the same time
which causes a problem with just having one driver?
PHP 5.3.0 builds (releases or snapshots) have no firebird since day
#1, I wonder what you have tested.
PHP5_3_080615
This has a php_interbase build that is working fine. The only problems I have
with this copy of 5.3.0 is all the NONE database error messages that it's
throwing in my various projects. But UNTIL there is agreement on what is going
to be the final version of 5.3.0 there is little point trying to fix them !!!
FIREBIRD has pulled somewhat further ahead and needs it's own build for
that, but there has still been no response on how we can achieve that!That's what we asked to have. We do not not use firebird, we have no
clue about the versions to use, the configuration or anything else. We
do not have the time and the resources to figure it out either and
that's why we asked you (as you Lester and the other person having
volunteered to provide the info) to provide these info.
The LAST request was that we simply tested things on windows - compiling
builds was not a problem? This we have been doing but since WE can't build
compatible windows binaries, we are reliant on the snapshot builds - which are
currently not happening for windows?
We never got an answer as to what was wrong with php_interbase i.e. what needs
doing to it to cater for the rewrite required for PHP5.3?
Instead of talking about forks and pointing the stinky fingers to
internals (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-php/message/2561),
you may finally do some your home work.
THAT problem relates to LINUX - but I have not been able to find it. MY 64
bit Linux systems are fine!!! So until someone can identify a faulty setup we
are a little stuffed :(
And KILLING php_interbase is not a solution to anything. If you do not want us
to use PHP then fine. I'm sure we can all scrap several years of work and
switch to something else. But we don't actually have a problem - we just never
advance beyond 5.2.x. And forcing weeks of unproductive activity trying to
create a PDO driver that does EVERYTHING that php_interbase CURRENTLY provides
is not a practical option either. We have already established that ADOdb
running in PDO mode is slower than the equivalent native drivers, so its
simply not a practical way forward.
I suppose the other option is to simply clone php_interbase outside the PHP
project and do our own builds? But support for windows will not happen that way :(
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Hi Lester,
I'm not sure what else we can say but you should really read your mail
archives and the discussions we had 6 months ago about what we need to
get firebird support back in 5.3.0 windows binaries.WHAT IS STILL OUTSTANDING?
I would greatly appreciate if you stop to write using upper cases for
every two sentences or words.
About killing FB, if I was trying to kill it, it would be in siberia
already. Please read my last post to the firebird-php list (when the
moderators let it through, did I mention that moderated lists are
bad?). But I said nothing else that what I told you months ago
already.
Cheers,
Pierre
Pierre Joye wrote:
Hi Lester,
I'm not sure what else we can say but you should really read your mail
archives and the discussions we had 6 months ago about what we need to
get firebird support back in 5.3.0 windows binaries.
WHAT IS STILL OUTSTANDING?I would greatly appreciate if you stop to write using upper cases for
every two sentences or words.About killing FB, if I was trying to kill it, it would be in siberia
already. Please read my last post to the firebird-php list (when the
moderators let it through, did I mention that moderated lists are
bad?). But I said nothing else that what I told you months ago
already.
I'm a moderator on that list :(
Obviously something is wrong since I've had no message for a pending post!
Strange since there are numerous messages for the trash that initial
moderation controls. On most of the list I moderate the crap exceeds the
legitimate posts at times - but if you want that included ....
And I do not apologise for the upper case since the context is totally
relevant. I THOUGHT that there had been agreement HERE that all we - the users
- needed to do was test and report - the system would provide the relevant
builds. This is the current status on the 5.2.7 builds - which we are waiting
for a windows version to test - but I had not realised that the 5.3 build I
have is possibly one of the last with the php_interbase driver :( And the
upper case above is relevant since I see nothing telling us why there is no
5.3 builds now?
But I'll continue this on the firebird-php list ....
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather
clone the existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper
Firebird version that actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than
sharing the now incompatible GDS32.DLL client. Some people are
starting to use Interbase in parallel with Firebird, but the driver
can only access one client :(
IMHO new database extensions should not be permitted unless they come
on the form of PDO drivers. Thats also the vibe we send the Microsoft
guys with their sqlsrv extension.
So if you cannot achieve what you need within the existing extension
while maintaining BC, I am afraid imho you will have to bite the
bullet and all the features into the PDO driver.
Thats my opinion at least.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org
Lukas Kahwe Smith schreef:
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone
the existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird
version that actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the
now incompatible GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use
Interbase in parallel with Firebird, but the driver can only access
one client :(
not that I give a **** about the windows interbase/firebird extension .. but ..
I do use firebird and all this talk of dropping firebird support is kind of scary
(well really scary actually) ... I am able to configure php with '--with-interbase'
in 5.3alpha2 so I guess I don't need to worry.
IMHO new database extensions should not be permitted unless they come on
the form of PDO drivers.
in the case of firebird this is a little unfair, the interbase extension provides
an alias of every ibase_() function in the form fbird_() which were specifically
included due to forseen divergence between the interbase and firebird clients.
effectively the extension for firebird already exists ... it just maps to the interbase
function, if the fbird_() aliases were removed and renamed copies the ibase_()
extensions functions created that then were built against the firebird client iso
the interbase client you'd pretty much be there. technically the [firebird] extension
would be new but is that really a deal breaker given that the complete API (fbird_*())
already exists?
PS - I've been trying to follow these firebird shannanigans but it's all been
a little too UPPER CASE for me to grok. :-/
Thats also the vibe we send the Microsoft guys
with their sqlsrv extension.So if you cannot achieve what you need within the existing extension
while maintaining BC, I am afraid imho you will have to bite the bullet
and all the features into the PDO driver.Thats my opinion at least.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org
Hi
Lukas Kahwe Smith schreef:
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone
the existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird
version that actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the
now incompatible GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use
Interbase in parallel with Firebird, but the driver can only access
one client :(not that I give a **** about the windows interbase/firebird extension .. but ..
When will you (all) understand that it is not only a windows problem?
The fact that windows is likely to do not have it in 5.3 is only a
side effect of the lack of developers around this extension (zero
developer). And seriously, comments like that do not have their place
in this list. I could say the same about firebird and simply keep away
from the windows releases and let the firebird users deal with that.
I do use firebird and all this talk of dropping firebird support is kind of scary
(well really scary actually) ... I am able to configure php with '--with-interbase'
in 5.3alpha2 so I guess I don't need to worry.
We are not talking about abandon it but moving out of core. Please
note that it will not happen tomorrow (5.3). But if nothing changes, I
do not see how this extension could remain in core without
maintainers, but that's not something I can decide on my own or for
5.3 :)
I find amazing that so many users are scary about loosing firebird in
core (they can always install it via pecl then) but I do not see too
much love around it (unit tests, bugs reports, patches, attempt to
contact the firebird developers, etc.).
effectively the extension for firebird already exists ... it just maps to the interbase
function, if the fbird_() aliases were removed and renamed copies the ibase_()
extensions functions created that then were built against the firebird client iso
the interbase client you'd pretty much be there. technically the [firebird] extension
would be new but is that really a deal breaker given that the complete API (fbird_*())
already exists?
I do not understand this paragraph.
PS - I've been trying to follow these firebird shannanigans but it's all been
a little too UPPER CASE for me to grok. :-/
Agreed :)
Cheers,
Pierre
Pierre Joye schreef:
Hi
Lukas Kahwe Smith schreef:
What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone
the existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird
version that actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the
now incompatible GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use
Interbase in parallel with Firebird, but the driver can only access
one client :(
not that I give a **** about the windows interbase/firebird extension .. but ..When will you (all) understand that it is not only a windows problem?
The fact that windows is likely to do not have it in 5.3 is only a
side effect of the lack of developers around this extension (zero
developer). And seriously, comments like that do not have their place
in this list.
true enough, my apologies.
I could say the same about firebird and simply keep away
from the windows releases and let the firebird users deal with that.I do use firebird and all this talk of dropping firebird support is kind of scary
(well really scary actually) ... I am able to configure php with '--with-interbase'
in 5.3alpha2 so I guess I don't need to worry.We are not talking about abandon it but moving out of core. Please
note that it will not happen tomorrow (5.3). But if nothing changes, I
do not see how this extension could remain in core without
maintainers, but that's not something I can decide on my own or for
5.3 :)
understood. my skills are not such that I could take on the responsibility,
I would if I could ... as such I can only continue to study until some of
C start to 'stick'
I find amazing that so many users are scary about loosing firebird in
core (they can always install it via pecl then) but I do not see too
much love around it (unit tests, bugs reports, patches, attempt to
contact the firebird developers, etc.).
understood. I personally have no problem with grabbing it from pecl instead of
it being bundled if that's the way it ends up going.
effectively the extension for firebird already exists ... it just maps to the interbase
function, if the fbird_() aliases were removed and renamed copies the ibase_()
extensions functions created that then were built against the firebird client iso
the interbase client you'd pretty much be there. technically the [firebird] extension
would be new but is that really a deal breaker given that the complete API (fbird_*())
already exists?I do not understand this paragraph.
um, I don't think I can explain it any better, probably I'm just on the wrong track anyway.
I'm going to look at the phpt tests for interbase/firebird and see if I can add something
useful.
@Lester: fancy giving me a run down of problems/issues/whatevers related to php+firebird offlist?
Pierre Joye wrote:
effectively the extension for firebird already exists ... it just maps to the interbase
function, if the fbird_() aliases were removed and renamed copies the ibase_()
extensions functions created that then were built against the firebird client iso
the interbase client you'd pretty much be there. technically the [firebird] extension
would be new but is that really a deal breaker given that the complete API (fbird_*())
already exists?I do not understand this paragraph.
When Ard rebuilt the php_interbase driver for PHP5 he created fbird_ aliases
for all the ibase_ functions. The driver is specific to PHP5 and always has
been. It was never back ported to PHP4. The PLAN was always when there was a
pressing need to separate Interbase and Firebird all of us who use fbird_
would simply switch to php_firebird without any internal code changes. At
present there is a 'niggle' rather than a 'pressing need' to implement the
split, but given the other discussions going on, now is probably the time to
sort this out as well?
I have no problem with php_interbase and php_firebird being in pecl, as long
as they are being compiled somewhere for those of us who do not have M$ tools
but have to support customers who have yet to convert to Linux ;)
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Pierre Joye wrote:
effectively the extension for firebird already exists ... it just
maps to the interbase
function, if the fbird_() aliases were removed and renamed copies
the ibase_()
extensions functions created that then were built against the
firebird client iso
the interbase client you'd pretty much be there. technically the
[firebird] extension
would be new but is that really a deal breaker given that the
complete API (fbird_*())
already exists?
I do not understand this paragraph.When Ard rebuilt the php_interbase driver for PHP5 he created fbird_
aliases for all the ibase_ functions. The driver is specific to PHP5
and always has been. It was never back ported to PHP4. The PLAN was
always when there was a pressing need to separate Interbase and
Firebird all of us who use fbird_ would simply switch to
php_firebird without any internal code changes. At present there is
a 'niggle' rather than a 'pressing need' to implement the split, but
given the other discussions going on, now is probably the time to
sort this out as well?I have no problem with php_interbase and php_firebird being in pecl,
as long as they are being compiled somewhere for those of us who do
not have M$ tools but have to support customers who have yet to
convert to Linux ;)
Ok, I was not aware of this. It does change things a bit, but imho I
would still prefer if most of this could be handled by an extension
internal switch. As for the use case of using interbase and firebird
in parallel. If you absolutely need this and are unwilling to do this
inside a PDO driver I do acknowledge that there are a lot of features
missing from the current PDO driver, the performance difference does
not strike me as a valid argument though. Foremost its not like its a
difference of day and night, also fetchAll() can actually increase
performance compared to the current database extensions. Also its
still negible compared to the time applications spend on their
queries. Also its not like PDO cannot be improved (of course there are
some limits in the current architecture).
So for core my opinion holds, that only PDO drivers should be added,
but PECL is of course another story.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org