Actually the question is, if we should go with PHP 5.3 or just take the fancy features of 5.6.
Some might argue "we don't need all features necessarily". Thats often an argument in Java land, and people stick with Java 5 or 6 in some frameworks because it can be done without. I think good and fancy code also attracts committers. Esp in the PHP world I assume that nicely written, modern PHP based on 5.6 would attract more people than working code with 5.3. 5.3 is already phasing out in addition, and I think migrations are done quicker than in the Java world. whats your ideas here? On Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 09:34, Michel Feldheim wrote: > Thanks guys for clarifying. > Agree, PSR-4 autoloading would be another improvement. > Introducing Namespaces increases the PHP requirement from currently > >=5.2.7 (according to the composer.json) to >=5.3.0 > > On 02/24/2015 07:34 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 19:22, Sven Rautenberg wrote: > >> You must implement the interface as it is, or you wouldn't be > >> implementing it. > >> > > +1. Either implementing it, or not. As Sven said, 3.x can break bc. We > > use semver.org. > > > > Offering PSR-3 is incompatible. Releasing version 3.0 signals > > "incompatible to 2.x" all over it. Note that the log levels defined in > > the RFC PSR-3 is based on are partly incompatible to the ones of Log4PHP > > 2.x. So this will be incompatible in any case. > > The only chance would be to keep the old interface for conveniance but > > make them some kind of bridge to the new interfaces. Not sure if it is > > worth the effort though. > > > > BTW: Would be nice to use PSR-4 autoloading as well - which means using > > namespaces. Which is also incompatible. > > > > Absolutely. There is an issue open for that, and I think Ivan already > > created a branch working this task. However Ivan is currently pretty > > busy, so PRs are surely welcome. > > > > My personal taste is to make use of all the fancy new things PHP has to > > offer for the moment. They will deprecate soon enough. And if we do a > > 3.x then make it proper and shiny. > > > > Cheers Christian > > > >> On 24. Februar 2015 15:41:57 MEZ, Michel Feldheim > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hey guys, > >>> > >>> working on > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4PHP-211?jql=project%20%3D%20LOG4PHP > >>> > >>> PSR-3 interface implementation > >>> (https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/master/accepted/PSR-3-logger-interface.md#13-context) > >>> > >>> PSR-3 defines a common interface for logging libraries. > >>> > >>> If implementing this interface, the usage of log4php would slightly > >>> change. > >>> > >>> Currently you can pass any throwable as argument into every log > >>> method > >>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4php/blob/master/src/main/php/Logger.php#L171 > >>> > >>> e.g.$logger->warn('message', $exception); > >>> > >>> the PSR-3 interface enforces $context array or null as parameter > >>> https://github.com/php-fig/log/blob/master/Psr/Log/LoggerInterface.php#L113 > >>> e.g.$logger->warn('message {placeholder}, array('placeholder' => > >>> 'senseless', 'exception' => $exception)); > >>> > >>> I could go the strict way and implement their interface, then 3.0.0 > >>> would not be downward compatible or slightly modify the interface to > >>> not enforce type array > >>> > >>> What's your preference? > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Sven > > > > >
