On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I wanted to ask what's our current consensus about feature requests > like > >> > this: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=67309 > >> > The requested function wouldn't provide anything which isn't currently > >> > available via ini_get(), but it would be a bit natural to expect a get > >> > method where a set exists. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Ferenc Kovács > >> > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> We talked about this with Yasuo in regards to some ext/session stuff > >> (although it was about setters) and agreed on keeping ini_set() only. > >> He even wrote a quick RFC about it: > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-ini-functions > >> > > > > Yeah, but AFAIR we didn't come up with an agreement (other than reverting > > out a couple of new functions from PHP 5.6.0). > > We didn't indeed, I was just giving you partial feedback. :) > > >> My opinion in general is that we don't need functions that duplicate > >> ini_set(), ini_get() for a particular setting and existing ones should > >> be removed in the future instead of adding more to complement them. No > >> idea what other people think about it though. > > > > > > I agree that providing multiple ways to achive the same thing is not > really > > useful. > > But we also have to decide whether or not it is worth the BC to remove > some > > existing function only because one can already do the same thing via > > ini_set. > > With work supposedly being started on PHP6, now is the right time to > make that decision. :) > > > Another (albeit maybe a bit far-fetched) aspect is that somebody could > > assume that he/she can restrict a setting via disabling the appropriate > > function(via disable_functions) while that can be bypassed through the > > ini_set or vica versa. > > So the more ways we provide for the same setting to be set it is more > likely > > that somebody forgets protecting one of those. > > Exactly. > > Cheers, > Andrey. > resurrecting this thread in the hope of getting a bit more feedback. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
