|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182916 is a reply to message #182914] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 03:48   |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/24/2013 10:38 PM, richard wrote:
> The big push is on for scripters to change to to i.
> But nobody knows when that's going to happen.
> As far as I can see, the "horses mouth" has not changed.
> the online resource manual STILL and totally, discusses mysql.
> They need to be making new pages that discuss what the changes are and how
> one is to make the changes properly.
>
> Mr. Yates pointed out that changing over hundreds of pages can be a tedious
> task. They need to literally rewrite the book.
> NOW!
> And define when the changeover is to happen.
>
>
> For now anyway, my little site only requires a few short pages and that can
> easily be changed.
>
The PTB have already indicated the mysql interface is deprecated. It
will be removed at some future time. That right there is enough to
start converting.
Considering PHP 6.0 is way behind its original proposed release date,
they probably don't know, either.
But then we know you're too stubborn and won't change until your "little
site" breaks. Then you'll come crying here that the new release broke
your site.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182917 is a reply to message #182914] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 04:14 |
Scott Johnson
Messages: 196
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/24/2013 7:38 PM, richard wrote:
> The big push is on for scripters to change to to i.
It is not a 'big push' it is responsible coding.
> But nobody knows when that's going to happen.
Which is reason enough to change now. Be proactive, not reactive. The
best analogy I can think is car insurance. Do you get it before or
after the accident you did not know when it would happen.
> As far as I can see, the "horses mouth" has not changed.
> the online resource manual STILL and totally, discusses mysql.
Pretty much every page in the PHP manual concerning the mysql_
extensions state they will be deprecated and which function to use in stead.
In fact read the FIRST sentence in the introduction.
http://www.php.net/manual/en/intro.mysql.php
> They need to be making new pages that discuss what the changes are and how
> one is to make the changes properly.
WOW do you read the PHP manual.
Each mysql_ function that is deprecated tells you which function to user
WITH a link to it. How much easier can it be?
>
> Mr. Yates pointed out that changing over hundreds of pages can be a tedious
> task. They need to literally rewrite the book.
> NOW!
> And define when the changeover is to happen.
>
First off if you have your function spread across hundreds of pages, you
have a nightmare scenario and should read and learn about OOP or even
using includes and functions from a single source page.
I am sure there still may be a few people here that may help show you
how this is done.
As to when it will happen. Does not matter because they say it WILL
happen..from the 'horses mouth'.
>
> For now anyway, my little site only requires a few short pages and that can
> easily be changed.
If it is so easy to change, then why the constant defense of not doing
it to the point where soon no one will want to give you advice.
Especially when you return to fix all the items that break down the road
that we suggested you fix NOW.
Scotty
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182918 is a reply to message #182914] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 04:20 |
David Robley
Messages: 23
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
richard wrote:
> The big push is on for scripters to change to to i.
> But nobody knows when that's going to happen.
_Providing your host supports it_, it happens when _you_ change your code.
The mysqli API has been available for some years now. I think it was
established in another thread that your hosting does support mysqli?
> As far as I can see, the "horses mouth" has not changed.
> the online resource manual STILL and totally, discusses mysql.
Well, yes, they would keep the information on how to use it as long as the
mysql API exists. How would you feel, as a user of it, if the mysql API docs
were removed? How would you know how to use it? Note that the mysql
extension docs do emphasise that it is deprecated as of ver 5.5 .
> They need to be making new pages that discuss what the changes are and how
> one is to make the changes properly.
That is pretty well covered in the mysqli documentation -
http://php.net/manual/en/book.mysqli.php
> Mr. Yates pointed out that changing over hundreds of pages can be a
> tedious task. They need to literally rewrite the book.
> NOW!
> And define when the changeover is to happen.
As said, the changeover can be done now - it depends on the programmer
writing the code as to which API is used.
>
> For now anyway, my little site only requires a few short pages and that
> can easily be changed.
So, why not do it now?
--
Cheers
David Robley
Insert inevitable trivial witticism of your choice.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182926 is a reply to message #182916] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 17:29 |
Adam Harvey
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:48:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Considering PHP 6.0 is way behind its original proposed release date,
> they probably don't know, either.
To nitpick, there is no PHP 6.0. In the form it was originally proposed,
it was dropped back in 2010 when php-src trunk was moved to the
experimental/first-unicode-implementation branch and trunk was rebased off
the then PHP 5.4 branch.
As for ext/mysql's removal, we'll see what happens. I deliberately left
that open ended when I wrote the deprecation RFC, because it really
depends on how quickly people move to the better alternatives. I don't
think it'll happen in 5.6 next year — as this thread demonstrates, there
are still too many people using it right now, but it is going to happen at
some point. Maintaining three separate extensions for the same database is
insane.
Adam
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182927 is a reply to message #182926] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 19:01 |
 |
richard
Messages: 213
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:29:18 +0000 (UTC), Adam Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:48:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Considering PHP 6.0 is way behind its original proposed release date,
>> they probably don't know, either.
>
> To nitpick, there is no PHP 6.0. In the form it was originally proposed,
> it was dropped back in 2010 when php-src trunk was moved to the
> experimental/first-unicode-implementation branch and trunk was rebased off
> the then PHP 5.4 branch.
>
> As for ext/mysql's removal, we'll see what happens. I deliberately left
> that open ended when I wrote the deprecation RFC, because it really
> depends on how quickly people move to the better alternatives. I don't
> think it'll happen in 5.6 next year — as this thread demonstrates, there
> are still too many people using it right now, but it is going to happen at
> some point. Maintaining three separate extensions for the same database is
> insane.
>
> Adam
Ain;t it amazing how the internet evolved over the years?
At first, everyone used tables for anything and everything.
Then they learned about CSS and applied it.
Then they learned how to manipulate the displayed page using server side
scripting such as PHP.
And upwards to sql and tables.
Then, PTB want to upgrade the system but are reluctant to do so because the
old system is till widely used, and abused.
Hell, if that theory held true, we'd still be using tables.
So why don't they just make the change, be done with it and let the people
have the option of using either.
Let's face it, html has deprecated a ton of things which are still in use.
Why? because a hoard of people refuse to upgrade their systems.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182928 is a reply to message #182927] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 19:28 |
Adam Harvey
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:01:28 -0400, richard wrote:
> Hell, if that theory held true, we'd still be using tables.
> So why don't they just make the change, be done with it and let the
> people have the option of using either.
The change you refer to happened nine years ago, when PDO and mysqli were
bundled into the release of PHP 5.0.0. You've had the option of using
either since then.
Make no mistake: ext/mysql will be removed at a future date. The manual
text isn't hyperbole. All I'm saying is that it almost certainly won't be
next year, but that it will be soon enough that writing new code to use
ext/mysql is unwise.
Adam
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182929 is a reply to message #182926] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 19:34 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/25/2013 1:29 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:48:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Considering PHP 6.0 is way behind its original proposed release date,
>> they probably don't know, either.
>
> To nitpick, there is no PHP 6.0. In the form it was originally proposed,
> it was dropped back in 2010 when php-src trunk was moved to the
> experimental/first-unicode-implementation branch and trunk was rebased off
> the then PHP 5.4 branch.
>
No, there is no PHP 6.0 NOW. But there will be eventually - just maybe
not in the form it was originally proposed.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182930 is a reply to message #182928] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 20:21 |
|
richard
Messages: 213
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:28:38 +0000 (UTC), Adam Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:01:28 -0400, richard wrote:
>> Hell, if that theory held true, we'd still be using tables.
>> So why don't they just make the change, be done with it and let the
>> people have the option of using either.
>
> The change you refer to happened nine years ago, when PDO and mysqli were
> bundled into the release of PHP 5.0.0. You've had the option of using
> either since then.
>
> Make no mistake: ext/mysql will be removed at a future date. The manual
> text isn't hyperbole. All I'm saying is that it almost certainly won't be
> next year, but that it will be soon enough that writing new code to use
> ext/mysql is unwise.
>
> Adam
then why hasn't the horses mouth followed their own demands?
Of all the reference material I've seen on their site, all examples refer
to mysql, NOT mysqli.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182932 is a reply to message #182930] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 20:38 |
Adam Harvey
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:21:25 -0400, richard wrote:
> then why hasn't the horses mouth followed their own demands?
> Of all the reference material I've seen on their site, all examples
> refer to mysql, NOT mysqli.
If you can provide links to pages on php.net that still recommend mysql
over mysqli or PDO, I will happily fix them up to recommend more modern
code.
Note that the reference documents for mysql_* functions already have
warnings at the top of each page recommending alternatives, and have to
include examples of the deprecated functions to be useful.
Adam
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182933 is a reply to message #182930] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 21:11 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:21:25 -0400, richard wrote:
> then why hasn't the horses mouth followed their own demands?
Please clarify. What do you mean by "horses mouth"?
There is only one horses mouth for php, and that is php.net. All the
reference material on php.net for mysql_* warns that it is deprecated and
that you should use mysqli_* or PDO_MySQL.
e.g. on http://uk3.php.net/manual/en/intro.mysql.php the introduction to
mysql is as follows:
This extension is deprecated as of PHP 5.5.0, and is not recommended for
writing new code as it will be removed in the future. Instead, either the
mysqli or PDO_MySQL extension should be used. See also the MySQL API
Overview for further help while choosing a MySQL API.
That is what the horses mouth says, so whatever horse you think is
talking to you, it's the wrong horse.
--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182934 is a reply to message #182929] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 21:32 |
Fiver
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 2013-09-25 21:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> No, there is no PHP 6.0 NOW. But there will be eventually [...]
Right after the release of Perl 6, presumably.
SCNR,
5er
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182935 is a reply to message #182927] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 21:38 |
Tim Streater
Messages: 328
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <1cun3xxz7nbpj(dot)zop5ye5ou0f7$(dot)dlg(at)40tude(dot)net>,
richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com> wrote:
> So why don't they just make the change, be done with it and let the people
> have the option of using either.
They have made the change; they've added mysqli.
Why don't you move to it?
> Let's face it, html has deprecated a ton of things which are still in use.
> Why? because a hoard of people refuse to upgrade their systems.
You mean, update their web pages. Fat chance of that happening. And
because browsers still support almost everything that was ever
introduced, bar a couple of minor things, I see no reason, by and large,
to do so either. I just use the HTML5 doctype to ensure standards mode.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182936 is a reply to message #182930] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 21:46 |
Lew Pitcher
Messages: 60
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Wednesday 25 September 2013 16:21, in comp.lang.php, richard
(noreply(at)example(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:28:38 +0000 (UTC), Adam Harvey wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:01:28 -0400, richard wrote:
>>> Hell, if that theory held true, we'd still be using tables.
>>> So why don't they just make the change, be done with it and let the
>>> people have the option of using either.
>>
>> The change you refer to happened nine years ago, when PDO and mysqli were
>> bundled into the release of PHP 5.0.0. You've had the option of using
>> either since then.
>>
>> Make no mistake: ext/mysql will be removed at a future date. The manual
>> text isn't hyperbole. All I'm saying is that it almost certainly won't be
>> next year, but that it will be soon enough that writing new code to use
>> ext/mysql is unwise.
>>
>> Adam
>
> then why hasn't the horses mouth followed their own demands?
> Of all the reference material I've seen on their site, all examples refer
> to mysql, NOT mysqli.
Richard, forget that we even suggested that you be proactive about your
site. You don't need to take any action now; you can wait until your
provider switches to whatever PHP release that removes the mysql_
interface, and then make your changes.
Of course, your site will be unavailable for the duration of your
changeover, and you won't be able to easily regression test the code
changes, but those are trivialities. I'm sure that you won't be off the air
for more than a few weeks.
As for the examples in the PHP documentation, I notice that most of them
are "contributed" by outsiders, as comments. I'm not certain that I'd trust
most of those examples to be representative of how the PHP maintainers
recommend that you do things.
HTH
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182937 is a reply to message #182935] |
Wed, 25 September 2013 21:58 |
Christoph Michael Bec
Messages: 207
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <1cun3xxz7nbpj(dot)zop5ye5ou0f7$(dot)dlg(at)40tude(dot)net>,
> richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Let's face it, html has deprecated a ton of things which are still in
>> use.
>> Why? because a hoard of people refuse to upgrade their systems.
>
> You mean, update their web pages. Fat chance of that happening. And
> because browsers still support almost everything that was ever
> introduced, bar a couple of minor things, I see no reason, by and large,
> to do so either. I just use the HTML5 doctype to ensure standards mode.
And that is exactly the reason, why those deprecated features won't be
removed--because it would break too many existing sites. If there were
less websites relying on obsolete features, the browser's could be
purged, which would be beneficial to ease further development.
The situation is similar with regard to the original MySQL extension.
Cf. <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mysql_deprecation>.
--
Christoph M. Becker
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182938 is a reply to message #182932] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 00:16 |
|
richard
Messages: 213
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:38:15 +0000 (UTC), Adam Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:21:25 -0400, richard wrote:
>> then why hasn't the horses mouth followed their own demands?
>> Of all the reference material I've seen on their site, all examples
>> refer to mysql, NOT mysqli.
>
> If you can provide links to pages on php.net that still recommend mysql
> over mysqli or PDO, I will happily fix them up to recommend more modern
> code.
>
> Note that the reference documents for mysql_* functions already have
> warnings at the top of each page recommending alternatives, and have to
> include examples of the deprecated functions to be useful.
>
> Adam
Since you're the man in charge, then I'll make a simple resolution.
Create a page with two columns.
Column 1 has the mysql item, while column 2 has the corresponding mysqli
item.
Then link column 2 to the new item "manual".
for instance:
mysql_free_result() ---->> mysqli_free_result()
http://php.net/manual/en/function.mysql-free-result.php
I had a look at the mysql stuff listed in the left column.
As you say, the replacement code is shown.
But I think a list showing the new code as well would be better.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182939 is a reply to message #182937] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 02:53 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/25/2013 5:58 PM, Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
> Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> In article <1cun3xxz7nbpj(dot)zop5ye5ou0f7$(dot)dlg(at)40tude(dot)net>,
>> richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's face it, html has deprecated a ton of things which are still in
>>> use.
>>> Why? because a hoard of people refuse to upgrade their systems.
>>
>> You mean, update their web pages. Fat chance of that happening. And
>> because browsers still support almost everything that was ever
>> introduced, bar a couple of minor things, I see no reason, by and large,
>> to do so either. I just use the HTML5 doctype to ensure standards mode.
>
> And that is exactly the reason, why those deprecated features won't be
> removed--because it would break too many existing sites. If there were
> less websites relying on obsolete features, the browser's could be
> purged, which would be beneficial to ease further development.
>
> The situation is similar with regard to the original MySQL extension.
> Cf. <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mysql_deprecation>.
>
No, they WILL BE removed. There has been plenty of time for people to
move to the new interface(s). Smart programmers have done so.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182940 is a reply to message #182934] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 02:54 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/25/2013 5:32 PM, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-09-25 21:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> No, there is no PHP 6.0 NOW. But there will be eventually [...]
>
> Right after the release of Perl 6, presumably.
>
> SCNR,
> 5er
>
Absolutely no relationship - other than trolls who try to make one.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182941 is a reply to message #182940] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 03:30 |
Fiver
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 2013-09-26 04:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/25/2013 5:32 PM, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-09-25 21:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> No, there is no PHP 6.0 NOW. But there will be eventually [...]
>>
>> Right after the release of Perl 6, presumably.
>>
>> SCNR,
>> 5er
>>
>
> Absolutely no relationship - other than trolls who try to make one.
Relax, it was a joke.
It will hardly get better by explaining, but since you just called me a
troll: the obvious parallel is that both PHP 6 and Perl 6 have been
delayed for a very long time since their initial announcements - 7 years
for PHP, 13 years for Perl.
(In both cases the 5.x versions have received a number of features
originally planned for 6.0. Some of the reasons for the delay are also
similar.)
I had assumed the "sorry could not resist" would be enough of a hint,
but I will make a mental note to mark future posts with emoticons or
other reading aids when I'm not being completely serious.
[⸮]
regards,
5er
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182943 is a reply to message #182941] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 06:13 |
Curtis Dyer
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-09-26 04:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 9/25/2013 5:32 PM, Fiver wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-25 21:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> No, there is no PHP 6.0 NOW. But there will be eventually
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Right after the release of Perl 6, presumably.
>>>
>>> SCNR,
>>> 5er
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely no relationship - other than trolls who try to make
>> one.
>
> Relax, it was a joke.
For what it's worth, I chuckled. :D
<snip>
--
Curtis Dyer
<?$x='<?$x=%c%s%c;printf($x,39,$x,39);?>';printf($x,39,$x,39);?>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182944 is a reply to message #182939] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 18:59 |
Christoph Michael Bec
Messages: 207
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/25/2013 5:58 PM, Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1cun3xxz7nbpj(dot)zop5ye5ou0f7$(dot)dlg(at)40tude(dot)net>,
>>> richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's face it, html has deprecated a ton of things which are still in
>>>> use.
>>>> Why? because a hoard of people refuse to upgrade their systems.
>>>
>>> You mean, update their web pages. Fat chance of that happening. And
>>> because browsers still support almost everything that was ever
>>> introduced, bar a couple of minor things, I see no reason, by and large,
>>> to do so either. I just use the HTML5 doctype to ensure standards mode.
>>
>> And that is exactly the reason, why those deprecated features won't be
>> removed--because it would break too many existing sites. If there were
>> less websites relying on obsolete features, the browser's could be
>> purged, which would be beneficial to ease further development.
>>
>> The situation is similar with regard to the original MySQL extension.
>> Cf. <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mysql_deprecation>.
>>
>
> No, they WILL BE removed.
I didn't want to say that the mysql extension will not be removed, but
rather that the process of deprecating it apparently was not so easy,
just because many websites/programs are still using the extension, even
if its use has been discouraged (long?) before PHP 5.5.
> There has been plenty of time for people to
> move to the new interface(s). Smart programmers have done so.
Agreed.
--
Christoph M. Becker
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182945 is a reply to message #182944] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 19:41 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/26/2013 2:59 PM, Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/2013 5:58 PM, Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1cun3xxz7nbpj(dot)zop5ye5ou0f7$(dot)dlg(at)40tude(dot)net>,
>>>> richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Let's face it, html has deprecated a ton of things which are still in
>>>> > use.
>>>> > Why? because a hoard of people refuse to upgrade their systems.
>>>>
>>>> You mean, update their web pages. Fat chance of that happening. And
>>>> because browsers still support almost everything that was ever
>>>> introduced, bar a couple of minor things, I see no reason, by and large,
>>>> to do so either. I just use the HTML5 doctype to ensure standards mode.
>>>
>>> And that is exactly the reason, why those deprecated features won't be
>>> removed--because it would break too many existing sites. If there were
>>> less websites relying on obsolete features, the browser's could be
>>> purged, which would be beneficial to ease further development.
>>>
>>> The situation is similar with regard to the original MySQL extension.
>>> Cf. <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mysql_deprecation>.
>>>
>>
>> No, they WILL BE removed.
>
> I didn't want to say that the mysql extension will not be removed, but
> rather that the process of deprecating it apparently was not so easy,
> just because many websites/programs are still using the extension, even
> if its use has been discouraged (long?) before PHP 5.5.
>
>> There has been plenty of time for people to
>> move to the new interface(s). Smart programmers have done so.
>
> Agreed.
>
It always takes a long time to remove something which has been used for
years - no matter what the product/language/OS/whatever. I think ZEND
has been very proactive in warning people about it going away, and will
continue to do so for a while to come before it is actually removed.
Unfortunately, there will still be a lot of sites (especially CMS's)
where the webmaster is not a programmer, and so won't see the message
until it's too late. Sure, the CMS's can change their code to not use
(or give the option to use) mysql_(), but many of those same webmasters
don't update their sites because they don't see a need to.
So you can bet that eventually many sites will break - just like they
did when PHP changed the default for register_globals, changed session
variable handling and any number of other changes - despite the fact
these had been deprecated for years before being removed.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182951 is a reply to message #182936] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 22:28 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-09-25 5:46 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 16:21, in comp.lang.php, richard
....
>
> Richard, forget that we even suggested that you be proactive about your
> site. You don't need to take any action now; you can wait until your
> provider switches to whatever PHP release that removes the mysql_
> interface, and then make your changes.
Says you; you're pissed because he's wise enough to see the bigger
picture by now. Actually I'm beginning to wonder about your own
experience and ability w/r to databases, PHP and how they're used.
If your servers don't let you determine the version of PHP you use and
would automatically change everything to their latest install, then I
suggest you need a server-admin where you get better support and
communications. Any major server changes should be communicated to you
BEFORE they happen, or at least be listed on the site - mine sends
e-mails to me. And it's a business oriented website with excellent
support areas who respond quickly to questions that aren't in their FAQs.
>
> Of course, your site will be unavailable for the duration of your
> changeover, and you won't be able to easily regression test the code
> changes, but those are trivialities. I'm sure that you won't be off the air
> for more than a few weeks.
It's pretty much irrelevant what you think based on your postings in
this thread.
>
> As for the examples in the PHP documentation, I notice that most of them
> are "contributed" by outsiders, as comments. I'm not certain that I'd trust
> most of those examples to be representative of how the PHP maintainers
> recommend that you do things.
>
> HTH
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182952 is a reply to message #182940] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 22:32 |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-09-25 10:54 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/25/2013 5:32 PM, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-09-25 21:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> No, there is no PHP 6.0 NOW. But there will be eventually [...]
>>
>> Right after the release of Perl 6, presumably.
>>
>> SCNR,
>> 5er
>>
>
> Absolutely no relationship - other than trolls who try to make one.
>
LOL, you should know!
|
|
|
|
| Re: the changeover to mysqli [message #182955 is a reply to message #182937] |
Thu, 26 September 2013 23:09 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
> Tim Streater wrote:
>> In article <1cun3xxz7nbpj(dot)zop5ye5ou0f7$(dot)dlg(at)40tude(dot)net>,
>> richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Let's face it, html has deprecated a ton of things which are still in
>>> use. Why? because a hoard of people refuse to upgrade their systems.
>>
>> You mean, update their web pages. Fat chance of that happening. And
>> because browsers still support almost everything that was ever
>> introduced, bar a couple of minor things, I see no reason, by and large,
>> to do so either. I just use the HTML5 doctype to ensure standards mode.
>
> And that is exactly the reason, why those deprecated features won't be
> removed--because it would break too many existing sites. If there were
> less websites relying on obsolete features, the browser's could be
> purged, which would be beneficial to ease further development.
>
> The situation is similar with regard to the original MySQL extension.
> Cf. <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mysql_deprecation>.
The most important issue with the mysql extension that appears to be
overlooked by all discussing so far is not that the extension will be
removed later. It is the fact that it is patently inefficient and insecure
by comparison *right now*. It has no native support for
- reading a result into an array *without* a loop (there is no
mysql_fetchall)
- transactions
- Prepared Statements
and so on.
It is no longer officially supported by the MySQL vendor, Oracle. As a
result, it does not support natively (if at all; I have not tried) features
introduced in MySQL 5.1 and above. The current MySQL stable version is 5.6.
The latest bugfix of php_mysql.c was in 2011:
<http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git ;a=history;f=ext/mysql/php_mysql.c;h=88bb9ab21ef9fb15a147fc776569e8548e0be8 3b;hb=HEAD >
That was 2 years ago. An eternity in computer technology, considering that
updates and especially security updated for maintained software are released
on a daily (e.g., security.debian.org) to at most bimonthly (e.g., Firefox)
basis.
See also <http://php.net/manual/en/mysqlinfo.api.choosing.php>
Deprecation is not merely a documentation status with PHP; it has
consequences for running PHP code:
<http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=commitdiff;h=b7091aaf0137d97cf4aa4a402ec50b3946d369c0>
IOW, E_DEPRECATED warnings may pile up in your log and make the application
and the server run slower than it could be.
Insofar your well-intentioned comparison with deprecated HTML features is
missing the point.
Anyhow, I am afraid that none of our arguments will be convincing enough for
*seemingly* natural-born ignorants like “richard”. So why not save free-
time and just stop feeding the likely troll – both of them?
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(at)news(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]