towards the next 5.3 release

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Hi,

I also just reopened:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46026

Not sure if Greg has time ..

Anyone can do this, the 3 lines that need removal are correct, I simply
forgot about it at commit time, and for the last erm, several months.... :)

Greg

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Hi,

I also just reopened:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46026

Not sure if Greg has time ..

Actually, this was more complex than originally stated, in that this
code is incorrect:

if (SUCCESS == zend_hash_find(HASH_OF(filterparams), "concatenated",
sizeof("concatenated"), (void **) &tmpzval) ) {

• SEPARATE_ZVAL(tmpzval);
• convert_to_boolean_ex(tmpzval);
  data->expect_concatenated = Z_LVAL_PP(tmpzval);
• zval_ptr_dtor(tmpzval);
  tmpzval = NULL;
  }

The reason being that it incorrectly uses whatever the zval is, thus any
hash table or object would evaluate to true, even an empty array or object.

Thus, the correct fix is the one implemented in zlib_filter.c, and I've
ported it over. It involves using a temporary zval, zval_copy_ctor()ing
it, and then convert_to_boolean_ex()ing it, which leaves the original
zval alone (the SEPARATE_ZVAL call does not do this properly), and
provides a valid boolean value. I'll commit momentarily.

Greg

Greg Beaver wrote:

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Aloha,

So Johannes and I have chatted about what needs to happen before we can
go to RC1. If there are no bigger issues the next version will indeed be
RC1. Release sometime in the second half of February. No specific date
has been set as of yet. One of the key questions before a date can be
set is what kind of issues we still have left to fix:

1. http://bugs.php.net/search.php?status=Open&phpver=5.3&cmd=display
2. we have the phar issues for big endian systems

I don't have access to any big endian systems, so I am appealing to
those who do to help me fix these (Scott had mentioned them, but I don't
have much information to be able to fix them, or even exactly what they
are).

https://www.opensolaris.org/register.jspa

And then speak to dsp for getting your account added to the test machine.

Scott

http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46984 - E_STRICT

I think overriding foo($x) with foo($x, $y) - with both parameters required -
leads to calls to foo with one argument be wrong for child - thus violating
LSP and warranting E_STRICT.

I agree with that Stas, this shouldn't change.

regards,
Derick

--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org
twitter: derickrethans

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

Hi!

http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46984 - E_STRICT

I think overriding foo($x) with foo($x, $y) - with both parameters
required - leads to calls to foo with one argument be wrong for child -
thus violating LSP and warranting E_STRICT.

I agree. If $y were optional, the LSP is no longer violated, and the
E_STRICT disappears, as expected.

Opn->Bgs

Greg

Hello Stanislav,

it should actually be a hard error. As we always claim PHP follows pure
IS-A relation ships.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 8:42:51 PM, you wrote:

Hi!

http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46984 - E_STRICT

I think overriding foo($x) with foo($x, $y) - with both parameters
required - leads to calls to foo with one argument be wrong for child -
thus violating LSP and warranting E_STRICT.

Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com

Best regards,
Marcus

Am 03.02.2009 um 14:41 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:

http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47206 - XSLT

I looked through the CVS logs, could you confirm I understand it right:

The type hint was added in 5.2.6, and will be gone again in 5.2.9, so
the only PHP releases with DOMDocument type hints there are 5.2.6,
5.2.7 and 5.2.8?

I think independently from what we do in 5.3 we will have
incompatibilities between versions here which can't be worked-around in
userland (I don't consider if (version_compare(...)) { class ... } else
{ class ... } a proper workaround)

So here are three choices:

• The DOMDoument typehint is certainly wrong.
• Adding an interface is lots of additional trouble (user code will
  break again, no proper way for users to be 5.2 and 5.3 compatible)
• No typehint, as it is now, #47206 "Expected / to be documented",
  incompatible with 5.2.6-5.2.8 but compatible with most other 5.2
  versions

After reading this thread and some limited private discussion I think
the last option is the best.

johannes

I'd be happy to give this a whirl on the project here and report back:
geeklog.net. I'm assuming it'll run just fine. I had it running under
alpha3 fine.

--Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:mls@pooteeweet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:42 AM
To: php-dev List
Subject: [PHP-DEV] towards the next 5.3 release

--snip--

5. upgrading guide
   --snip--

RC really signifies a feature complete + "should be releasable" state.
I think a good step before would be to reach out to some of the popular
PHP application authors and see if they can give b1 a try. This will
give us input for upgrading guide and it may raise some issues.

Maybe we can first collect a list here on internals@ on what apps have
been successfully been run on 5.3 and whether they required any
tweaking. If after we make a list there's still need to reach out I'd be
happy to do some of that.

Andi

--

--
Tony Bibbs
Email: tony@tonybibbs.com Phone: 515.554.8046
Twitter: tonybibbs Skype: tonybibbs
Web: http://www.tonybibbs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:mls@pooteeweet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:42 AM
To: php-dev List
Subject: [PHP-DEV] towards the next 5.3 release

--snip--

5. upgrading guide
   --snip--

RC really signifies a feature complete + "should be releasable" state.
I think a good step before would be to reach out to some of the
popular
PHP application authors and see if they can give b1 a try. This will
give us input for upgrading guide and it may raise some issues.

Maybe we can first collect a list here on internals@ on what apps have
been successfully been run on 5.3 and whether they required any
tweaking. If after we make a list there's still need to reach out
I'd be
happy to do some of that.

Well we have established the primary testers mailinglist for this
purpose. However the current release plan only includes mailing this
list when the RC stage has been reached:
http://www.php.net/reST/php-src/README.RELEASE_PROCESS

So obviously this list can be used to get in contact with this group
of projects. Maybe it makes sense to include them in x.y.0 releases.
Then again the plan was to mail them once we hit RC1 anyways ...

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org

Maybe we can first collect a list here on internals@ on what apps have
been successfully been run on 5.3 and whether they required any
tweaking. If after we make a list there's still need to reach out
I'd be
happy to do some of that.

FWIW, I've some casual testing with Habari and 5.3 and we haven't had
any problems since ArrayObject was fixed, as far as I know.

S

W liście Rob Richards z dnia środa 04 lutego 2009:

If that's the route this is going to go, I'd rather be able to set an
anytype hint where the developer could possibly restrict this further
with a more specific type if they extend the class.

But that would break Liskov's principle...

--
Paweł Stradomski