Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » ze1 compatibility mode »

ze1 compatibility mode

php.internals

Zeev Suraski

20 years ago
Guys, I know I'm a late bloomer on this one, but when did we discuss the discontinuation of ze1 compatibility mode within the 5.x branch? I recall we agreed to remove it for 6.0, but removing such a thing in 5.x seems very counterintuitive and counterproductive. If anybody can point me to a discussion that took place I'll (do my bes to) shut up. Zeev

Derick Rethans

20 years ago
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I know I'm a late bloomer on this one, but when did we discuss the > discontinuation of ze1 compatibility mode within the 5.x branch? I recall we > agreed to remove it for 6.0, but removing such a thing in 5.x seems very > counterintuitive and counterproductive.
As a coincidence I tried to run some of our code with this mode on in 5.1.4... crash within the first few lines on some clone... so I'm not so sure how counterintuitive it is to get rid of it ;-) Derick
-- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Christian Schneider

20 years ago
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> I know I'm a late bloomer on this one, but when did we discuss the >> discontinuation of ze1 compatibility mode within the 5.x branch? I recall we >> agreed to remove it for 6.0, but removing such a thing in 5.x seems very >> counterintuitive and counterproductive. > > As a coincidence I tried to run some of our code with this mode on in > 5.1.4... crash within the first few lines on some clone... so I'm not so > sure how counterintuitive it is to get rid of it ;-)
Lost of people haven't made the step from PHP4 to PHP5 yet and the compatibility mode was one of the tools for this. Removing it is certainly a big BC break for people who are relying on it right now. It might have crashed with your code but it could have worked with others. On the other hand we tried to use it here and it didn't really help us. I think what would really help is a tool or mode where the dangerous spots in the code could be more easily located. One thing could be a way of annotating a class that produces a notice for $a = $b where $b is an instance of this class. This is just brainstorming and maybe not that useful after all but I don't think the migration path is easy enough as it is. - Chris

Marcus Börger

20 years ago
Hello Zeev, See here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 12. 4. Drop ZE1 compatibility Done (marcus) And here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=114695447815299&w=2 Usually we just direct these kinds of questions with 'check the archives' :-) regards marcus Tuesday, May 23, 2006, 2:46:40 AM, you wrote:
> Guys,
> I know I'm a late bloomer on this one, but when did we discuss the > discontinuation of ze1 compatibility mode within the 5.x branch? I > recall we agreed to remove it for 6.0, but removing such a thing in > 5.x seems very counterintuitive and counterproductive.
> If anybody can point me to a discussion that took place I'll (do my > bes to) shut up.
> Zeev
Best regards, Marcus

Zeev Suraski

20 years ago
At 21:29 23/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>Hello Zeev, > >See here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 > 12. 4. Drop ZE1 compatibility Done (marcus)
(Sorry for the slow response, I'm traveling) Yeah that's fine, but it was never discussed at all let alone decided upon... IMHO it doesn't make sense to remove that in PHP 5.x - it's not a great feature, but some people are using it, and we're not gaining anything from making their lives more difficult. Can you please revert this patch, and only remove it in PHP 6.0 as we agreed? Zeev

Marcus Börger

20 years ago
Hello Zeev, Thursday, May 25, 2006, 1:04:59 PM, you wrote:
> At 21:29 23/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >>Hello Zeev, >> >>See here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 >> 12. 4. Drop ZE1 compatibility Done (marcus)
> (Sorry for the slow response, I'm traveling)
> Yeah that's fine, but it was never discussed at all let alone decided > upon... IMHO it doesn't make sense to remove that in PHP 5.x - it's > not a great feature, but some people are using it, and we're not > gaining anything from making their lives more difficult.
> Can you please revert this patch, and only remove it in PHP 6.0 as we agreed?
No i cannot. And there was an open discussion. And you weren't intersted at that time. Best regards, Marcus

Zeev Suraski

20 years ago
At 23:44 25/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>Hello Zeev, > >Thursday, May 25, 2006, 1:04:59 PM, you wrote: > > > At 21:29 23/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >>Hello Zeev, > >> > >>See here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 > >> 12. 4. Drop ZE1 compatibility Done (marcus) > > > (Sorry for the slow response, I'm traveling) > > > Yeah that's fine, but it was never discussed at all let alone decided > > upon... IMHO it doesn't make sense to remove that in PHP 5.x - it's > > not a great feature, but some people are using it, and we're not > > gaining anything from making their lives more difficult. > > > Can you please revert this patch, and only remove it in PHP 6.0 > as we agreed? > >No i cannot. And there was an open discussion. And you weren't intersted at >that time.
As I said, can you point me to that open discussion? I found no references to it of any sort. The first email that mentioned it is from Ilia, listing a list of things for PHP 5.2, with this among them. Just in case it's not clear, that does not constitute discussion :) Zeev

Marcus Börger

20 years ago
Hello Zeev, Thursday, May 25, 2006, 11:51:44 PM, you wrote:
> At 23:44 25/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >>Hello Zeev, >> >>Thursday, May 25, 2006, 1:04:59 PM, you wrote: >> >> > At 21:29 23/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >> >>Hello Zeev, >> >> >> >>See here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 >> >> 12. 4. Drop ZE1 compatibility Done (marcus) >> >> > (Sorry for the slow response, I'm traveling) >> >> > Yeah that's fine, but it was never discussed at all let alone decided >> > upon... IMHO it doesn't make sense to remove that in PHP 5.x - it's >> > not a great feature, but some people are using it, and we're not >> > gaining anything from making their lives more difficult. >> >> > Can you please revert this patch, and only remove it in PHP 6.0 >> as we agreed? >> >>No i cannot. And there was an open discussion. And you weren't intersted at >>that time.
> As I said, can you point me to that open discussion? I found no > references to it of any sort. The first email that mentioned it is > from Ilia, listing a list of things for PHP 5.2, with this among > them. Just in case it's not clear, that does not constitute discussion :)
What does, if you agree or anybody else in particular? We have put it on our todo and i acted on behalf of that. And for the same reson that i dropped E_STRICT from E_ALL i am not reverting that patch. Sorry but it has been the php way the silent acceptance. I would really like to change to a more formal way which is why i really really like stuff like the above mentioned site. Best regards, Marcus

Robert Amos

20 years ago
I can't find any references to a discussion on this either. This change was also on the list for 6 and has been completed, would that not be a better time to do this? -bok On 5/26/06, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:
> > Hello Zeev, > > Thursday, May 25, 2006, 11:51:44 PM, you wrote: > > > At 23:44 25/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >>Hello Zeev, > >> > >>Thursday, May 25, 2006, 1:04:59 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> > At 21:29 23/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >> >>Hello Zeev, > >> >> > >> >>See here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 > >> >> 12. 4. Drop ZE1 compatibility Done (marcus) > >> > >> > (Sorry for the slow response, I'm traveling) > >> > >> > Yeah that's fine, but it was never discussed at all let alone decided > >> > upon... IMHO it doesn't make sense to remove that in PHP 5.x - it's > >> > not a great feature, but some people are using it, and we're not > >> > gaining anything from making their lives more difficult. > >> > >> > Can you please revert this patch, and only remove it in PHP 6.0 > >> as we agreed? > >> > >>No i cannot. And there was an open discussion. And you weren't intersted > at > >>that time. > > > As I said, can you point me to that open discussion? I found no > > references to it of any sort. The first email that mentioned it is > > from Ilia, listing a list of things for PHP 5.2, with this among > > them. Just in case it's not clear, that does not constitute discussion > :) > > What does, if you agree or anybody else in particular? We have put it > on our todo and i acted on behalf of that. And for the same reson that > i dropped E_STRICT from E_ALL i am not reverting that patch. Sorry but > it has been the php way the silent acceptance. I would really like to > change to a more formal way which is why i really really like stuff > like the above mentioned site. > > Best regards, > Marcus > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
-- Xnyo - http://xnyo.odynia.org/

Marcus Börger

20 years ago
Hello Robert, when we first wrote the 6.0 list we were barely at 5.1. When we started to work towards 5.2 we came up with a new list. Friday, May 26, 2006, 5:38:55 AM, you wrote:
> I can't find any references to a discussion on this either.
Once again it was on the list and nobody was interested.
> This change was also on the list for 6 and has been completed, would that > not be a better time to do this?
> -bok
> On 5/26/06, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote: >> >> Hello Zeev, >> >> Thursday, May 25, 2006, 11:51:44 PM, you wrote: >> >> > At 23:44 25/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >> >>Hello Zeev, >> >> >> >>Thursday, May 25, 2006, 1:04:59 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> >> > At 21:29 23/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >> >> >>Hello Zeev, >> >> >> >> >> >>See here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 >> >> >> 12. 4. Drop ZE1 compatibility Done (marcus) >> >> >> >> > (Sorry for the slow response, I'm traveling) >> >> >> >> > Yeah that's fine, but it was never discussed at all let alone decided >> >> > upon... IMHO it doesn't make sense to remove that in PHP 5.x - it's >> >> > not a great feature, but some people are using it, and we're not >> >> > gaining anything from making their lives more difficult. >> >> >> >> > Can you please revert this patch, and only remove it in PHP 6.0 >> >> as we agreed? >> >> >> >>No i cannot. And there was an open discussion. And you weren't intersted >> at >> >>that time. >> >> > As I said, can you point me to that open discussion? I found no >> > references to it of any sort. The first email that mentioned it is >> > from Ilia, listing a list of things for PHP 5.2, with this among >> > them. Just in case it's not clear, that does not constitute discussion >> :) >> >> What does, if you agree or anybody else in particular? We have put it >> on our todo and i acted on behalf of that. And for the same reson that >> i dropped E_STRICT from E_ALL i am not reverting that patch. Sorry but >> it has been the php way the silent acceptance. I would really like to >> change to a more formal way which is why i really really like stuff >> like the above mentioned site. >> >> Best regards, >> Marcus >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >>
Best regards, Marcus

Wez Furlong

20 years ago
FWIW, I don't remember a discussion on this for PHP 5 either. --Wez. On 5/25/06, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

Steph

20 years ago
That's because there wasn't one... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wez Furlong" <kingwez@gmail.com> To: "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com> Cc: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>; <internals@lists.php.net> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 4:14 AM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ze1 compatibility mode FWIW, I don't remember a discussion on this for PHP 5 either. --Wez. On 5/25/06, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> At 23:44 25/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >Hello Zeev, > > > >Thursday, May 25, 2006, 1:04:59 PM, you wrote: > > > > > At 21:29 23/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: > > >>Hello Zeev, > > >> > > >>See here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 > > >> 12. 4. Drop ZE1 compatibility Done (marcus) > > > > > (Sorry for the slow response, I'm traveling) > > > > > Yeah that's fine, but it was never discussed at all let alone decided > > > upon... IMHO it doesn't make sense to remove that in PHP 5.x - it's > > > not a great feature, but some people are using it, and we're not > > > gaining anything from making their lives more difficult. > > > > > Can you please revert this patch, and only remove it in PHP 6.0 > > as we agreed? > > > >No i cannot. And there was an open discussion. And you weren't intersted > >at > >that time. > > As I said, can you point me to that open discussion? I found no > references to it of any sort. The first email that mentioned it is > from Ilia, listing a list of things for PHP 5.2, with this among > them. Just in case it's not clear, that does not constitute discussion :) > > Zeev > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Marcus Börger

20 years ago
Hello Steph, i somehow get really nervous and sober on this. Please don't force your point of view over everybody and please don't let your view be guided by your mail filters. It has been announced long enough. And everybody was free to reply to this. Friday, May 26, 2006, 7:04:08 AM, you wrote:

Zeev Suraski

20 years ago
Marcus, For the sake of world peace, let's say you're absolutely right. Let's be done with this compat mode case study. The important point is for the future - announce compatibility breaking changes (removal of features, major changes to features) clearly on internals@, in a dedicated email inviting discussion. If you get no feedback - be persistent and ask for even those that support it to move forward and say so. Listing it in a shopping list of new features for the next version is important, but only after such a discussion takes place. Zeev At 11:46 26/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:

Lukas Smith

20 years ago
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Marcus, > > For the sake of world peace, let's say you're absolutely right. Let's > be done with this compat mode case study. > > The important point is for the future - announce compatibility breaking > changes (removal of features, major changes to features) clearly on > internals@, in a dedicated email inviting discussion. If you get no > feedback - be persistent and ask for even those that support it to move > forward and say so. > > Listing it in a shopping list of new features for the next version is > important, but only after such a discussion takes place.
I think such things should be listed and planned on a web page. Be that the wiki system I put up, or some file on phpweb CVS. It should be a place where developers (and users) can see what is under discussion, what is decided and when to expect the change as well links to related documentation. That way it is easy for people to get up to speed with things and see when what decisions were made. regards, Lukas PS: I think the wiki is really showing how useful it is. I have no problem managing ACL's for the site. However I think it would get used even more actively if the ACL's would be derived from cvs.php.net .. It also does not necessarily need to be a wiki, though I think its convinient for these kinds of documents.

Zeev Suraski

20 years ago
You mean for PHP 6? IIRC it was discussed in the Paris meeting, which were published and discussed... I wasn't in favour of removing it, but I think it's less of an issue with PHP 6 than it is with PHP 5. Zeev At 05:14 26/05/2006, Wez Furlong wrote:

Ilia A.

20 years ago
It was part of the overall 5.2 change list that was sent to internals before the 5.2 was branched. Ilia Alshanetsky On 25-May-06, at 10:14 PM, Wez Furlong wrote:

Wez Furlong

20 years ago
Ah, but a list is not a discussion :) Reminds me of a certain notice being posted in a disused bathroom behind a door labelled "beware of the leopard", or something ;-) I think "we" missed it because it wasn't discussed on the list, it was just an item in a list of possible changes. Not that I have a preference either way on this particular item, but if things are discussed offlist, then the people proposing the changes need to do a better job of letting the rest of us know what they have in mind (and getting a vote on it) before they go ahead and do it. --Wez. On 5/26/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote: