FAQ
Taking advantage of php|tek bringing a lot of people together, we had a PHP developers
meeting over 2 days before the conference. Day 1 was dedicated to technical issues in PHP
5 and 6, and day 2 was spent discussing potential features, migration issues, current
roadblocks, etc.

People who were at the meeting:

Day 1
* Brian Shire
* Derick Rethans
* Dmitry Stogov
* Elizabeth Smith
* Ilia Alshanetsky
* Sara Golemon
* Scott MacVicar
* Stas Malyshev
* Tom Hanrahan (Microsoft)
* Wez Furlong
* me

Day 2 (Day 1 people) +
* Ben Ramsey
* Cal Evans
* Chris Jones
* Chris Shiflett
* Hank Jannsen (Microsoft)
* Andrew Kass (Microsoft)
* Sean Coates

The notes from the meeting are available on the wiki:

http://wiki.php.net/summits/pdmnotesmay09

I don't want people here to assume that these notes are "decisions" necessarily. They
reflect the consensus of the group that was at the meeting and we should still take up the
unresolved or arguable issues on this list. But hopefully we have a more structured and
outlined list of things that we can follow for PHP 5.4/6. There are a couple of items that
were unclear from the original notes — looking at you, Liz Smith :) - so, those of you who
remember the discussion, please fill them in.

-Andrei

Search Discussions

  • Hannes Magnusson at Jun 3, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 22:52, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
    Taking advantage of php|tek bringing a lot of people together, we had a PHP
    developers meeting over 2 days before the conference. Day 1 was dedicated to
    technical issues in PHP 5 and 6, and day 2 was spent discussing potential
    features, migration issues, current roadblocks, etc.
    I assume the names in parentheses are people who volunteered to do the
    task, not whoever brought it up? (very ambitious crowd) :)

    Regarding the stream interface, what does "FIIK" mean?
    I would really love such an interface, the current situation is very
    confusing, and I once upon a time had a rough draft of it..

    And regarding reserving the "PHP" namespace, this was brought up
    during the 5.3 release cycle and is something that imo should be done
    in 5.3.. I'm unsure what happened to that discussion, probably
    dissolved into separator war.

    -Hannes
  • Andrei Zmievski at Jun 3, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    Hannes Magnusson wrote:
    I assume the names in parentheses are people who volunteered to do the
    task, not whoever brought it up? (very ambitious crowd) :)
    Volunteered to do it or at least guide others.
    Regarding the stream interface, what does "FIIK" mean?
    I would really love such an interface, the current situation is very
    confusing, and I once upon a time had a rough draft of it..
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FIIK

    That was one that I couldn't decipher from Liz's notes.
    And regarding reserving the "PHP" namespace, this was brought up
    during the 5.3 release cycle and is something that imo should be done
    in 5.3.. I'm unsure what happened to that discussion, probably
    dissolved into separator war.
    Quite likely.

    -Andrei
  • Elizabeth M Smith at Jun 3, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Andrei Zmievski wrote:
    Hannes Magnusson wrote:
    I assume the names in parentheses are people who volunteered to do the
    task, not whoever brought it up? (very ambitious crowd) :)
    Volunteered to do it or at least guide others.
    Regarding the stream interface, what does "FIIK" mean?
    I would really love such an interface, the current situation is very
    confusing, and I once upon a time had a rough draft of it..
    and you didn't ask either Andrei ;)

    yes Hannes - interfaces for userland implemented streams would help
    people trying to figure out if they have all the methods they need for a
    particular stream type (SeekableStream et al) - this would be backward
    compat (you wouldn't HAVE to implement the interfaces IIRC, at least not
    right away) but would help things along - Sara had the general ideas for
    how this would be done.

    rough draft sounds good - code?

    Thanks
    Elizabeth Smith
  • Andrei Zmievski at Jun 3, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    Elizabeth M Smith wrote:
    yes Hannes - interfaces for userland implemented streams would help
    people trying to figure out if they have all the methods they need for a
    particular stream type (SeekableStream et al) - this would be backward
    compat (you wouldn't HAVE to implement the interfaces IIRC, at least not
    right away) but would help things along - Sara had the general ideas for
    how this would be done.

    rough draft sounds good - code?
    Can you update the wiki with this? :)

    -Andrei
  • Andi Gutmans at Jun 4, 2009 at 6:46 am

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Elizabeth M Smith
    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:43 PM
    To: internals@lists.php.net
    Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Notes from the PDM in Chicago
    yes Hannes - interfaces for userland implemented streams would help
    people trying to figure out if they have all the methods they need for
    a
    particular stream type (SeekableStream et al) - this would be backward
    compat (you wouldn't HAVE to implement the interfaces IIRC, at least
    not
    right away) but would help things along - Sara had the general ideas
    for
    how this would be done.
    Btw, this is also true for PDO. We would want interfaces for PDOStatement and some other classes there too. That is in the TODO for PDO I believe but if we do this then let's make sure we do it consistently.

    Andi
  • Pierre Joye at Jun 4, 2009 at 6:49 am

    On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Elizabeth M Smith
    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:43 PM
    To: internals@lists.php.net
    Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Notes from the PDM in Chicago
    yes Hannes - interfaces for userland implemented streams would help
    people trying to figure out if they have all the methods they need for
    a
    particular stream type (SeekableStream et al) - this would be backward
    compat (you wouldn't HAVE to implement the interfaces IIRC, at least
    not
    right away) but would help things along - Sara had the general ideas
    for
    how this would be done.
    Btw, this is also true for PDO. We would want interfaces for PDOStatement and some other classes there too. That is in the TODO for PDO I believe but if we do this then let's make sure we do it consistently.
    I would suggest to create a specific RFC about this topic in the wiki.

    Cheers,
  • Andi Gutmans at Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Pierre Joye
    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:50 PM
    To: Andi Gutmans
    Cc: Elizabeth M Smith; internals@lists.php.net
    Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Notes from the PDM in Chicago
    Btw, this is also true for PDO. We would want interfaces for
    PDOStatement and some other classes there too. That is in the TODO for
    PDO I believe but if we do this then let's make sure we do it
    consistently.

    I would suggest to create a specific RFC about this topic in the wiki.
    The requirement itself is captured in http://wiki.php.net/rfc/pdov1. The
    problem is of course coming up with an RFC for a standard way to do
    interfaces for internal classes that need that (naming convention).
    Will try and look into what precedence we have and see what we can
    suggest.
    Andi
  • Keisial at Jun 5, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    Elizabeth M Smith wrote:
    yes Hannes - interfaces for userland implemented streams would help
    people trying to figure out if they have all the methods they need for a
    particular stream type (SeekableStream et al) - this would be backward
    compat (you wouldn't HAVE to implement the interfaces IIRC, at least not
    right away) but would help things along - Sara had the general ideas for
    how this would be done.

    rough draft sounds good - code?

    Thanks
    Elizabeth Smith
    While dealing with the streams interfaces, what about making the api
    saner, too?
    All those bucket and brigade functions make streams unnecessarily complex
    to deal with.
    http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.stream.php
  • Hannes Magnusson at Jun 5, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 23:01, Keisialwrote:
    While dealing with the streams interfaces, what about making the api
    saner, too?
    All those bucket and brigade functions make streams unnecessarily complex
    to deal with.
    http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.stream.php
    I made an honest attempt documenting the stream wrapper
    (http://php.net/streamwrapper) few weeks ago and was planning on
    hitting the filter stuff next.. I lost to many braincells in the
    process and fear going through the filters will leave me with none
    left..

    Help appreciated! :)

    -Hannes
  • Greg Beaver at Jun 4, 2009 at 3:19 am

    Andrei Zmievski wrote:
    Hannes Magnusson wrote:
    I assume the names in parentheses are people who volunteered to do the
    task, not whoever brought it up? (very ambitious crowd) :)
    Volunteered to do it or at least guide others.
    I think some people were "volunteered" based on prior contributions?
    The first I heard of my role in phar for PHP 6 was reading it on the
    wiki. Not that I have a problem with that, but I wonder if there are
    other people who don't know their names are on the list?

    Thanks,
    Greg
  • Andrei Zmievski at Jun 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Greg Beaver wrote:
    I think some people were "volunteered" based on prior contributions?
    The first I heard of my role in phar for PHP 6 was reading it on the
    wiki. Not that I have a problem with that, but I wonder if there are
    other people who don't know their names are on the list?
    Yes, we basically looked at the current maintainer of the extension or code when making
    the list. Hopefully, this is not a problem with anyone - people can pass off the task to
    someone else.

    -Andrei
  • Pierre Joye at Jun 4, 2009 at 6:02 am

    On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
    Taking advantage of php|tek bringing a lot of people together, we had a PHP
    developers meeting over 2 days before the conference. Day 1 was dedicated to
    technical issues in PHP 5 and 6, and day 2 was spent discussing potential
    features, migration issues, current roadblocks, etc.

    People who were at the meeting:

    Day 1
    * Brian Shire
    * Derick Rethans
    * Dmitry Stogov
    * Elizabeth Smith
    * Ilia Alshanetsky
    * Sara Golemon
    * Scott MacVicar
    * Stas Malyshev
    * Tom Hanrahan (Microsoft)
    * Wez Furlong
    * me

    Day 2 (Day 1 people) +
    * Ben Ramsey
    * Cal Evans
    * Chris Jones
    * Chris Shiflett
    * Hank Jannsen (Microsoft)
    * Andrew Kass (Microsoft)
    * Sean Coates

    The notes from the meeting are available on the wiki:

    http://wiki.php.net/summits/pdmnotesmay09

    I don't want people here to assume that these notes are "decisions"
    necessarily.
    You mean "are not decicions" right?


    Cheers,
  • Lukas Kahwe Smith at Jun 4, 2009 at 6:40 am

    On 03.06.2009, at 22:52, Andrei Zmievski wrote:

    I don't want people here to assume that these notes are "decisions"
    necessarily. They reflect the consensus of the group that was at the
    meeting and we should still take up the unresolved or arguable
    issues on this list. But hopefully we have a more structured and
    outlined list of things that we can follow for PHP 5.4/6. There are
    a couple of items that were unclear from the original notes —
    looking at you, Liz Smith :) - so, those of you who remember the
    discussion, please fill them in.

    To me its absolutely critical that we do not give the impression that
    the next bigger update after 5.3 will be 5.4. The next big thing is
    6.0. If we do a 5.4 then it will come after 6.0, just like 4.4 to ease
    migration. But it makes no sense to release 5.4 with forward
    compatibility stuff until we know we really nailed 6.0.

    regards,
    Lukas Kahwe Smith
    mls@pooteeweet.org
  • Kalle Sommer Nielsen at Jun 4, 2009 at 6:50 am
    2009/6/4 Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>:
    On 03.06.2009, at 22:52, Andrei Zmievski wrote:

    I don't want people here to assume that these notes are "decisions"
    necessarily. They reflect the consensus of the group that was at the meeting
    and we should still take up the unresolved or arguable issues on this list.
    But hopefully we have a more structured and outlined list of things that we
    can follow for PHP 5.4/6. There are a couple of items that were unclear from
    the original notes — looking at you, Liz Smith :) - so, those of you who
    remember the discussion, please fill them in.

    To me its absolutely critical that we do not give the impression that the
    next bigger update after 5.3 will be 5.4. The next big thing is 6.0. If we
    do a 5.4 then it will come after 6.0, just like 4.4 to ease migration. But
    it makes no sense to release 5.4 with forward compatibility stuff until we
    know we really nailed 6.0.
    I completely agree, we have already seen how much further 5.3's
    release process was extended by constant new proposals and in the
    middle namespaces, doing a 5.4 (before a 6.0.0 alpha/beta/rc) will
    most likely crease development in HEAD (again, again) and extend the
    development a year. 5.4 could be a considerable upgrade after the
    6.0.0 release, 6.0.0 have already been delayed many years, I remember
    in Paris 2005 someone said something about an expected 6.0.0 alpha or
    similar within a half year.
    regards,
    Lukas Kahwe Smith
    mls@pooteeweet.org




    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


    --
    regrads,

    Kalle Sommer Nielsen
    kalle@php.net
  • Karsten Dambekalns at Jun 4, 2009 at 7:56 am
    Hi Lukas.
    On 04.06.2009 8:40 Uhr, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
    To me its absolutely critical that we do not give the impression that
    the next bigger update after 5.3 will be 5.4. The next big thing is 6.0.
    Thumbs up, and good luck with this ambitious plan! ;) We'd be happy to
    switch to PHP 6...

    Regards,
    Karsten
  • Andrei Zmievski at Jun 4, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
    To me its absolutely critical that we do not give the impression that
    the next bigger update after 5.3 will be 5.4. The next big thing is 6.0.
    If we do a 5.4 then it will come after 6.0, just like 4.4 to ease
    migration. But it makes no sense to release 5.4 with forward
    compatibility stuff until we know we really nailed 6.0.
    Yes, let me make this absolutely clear. All development effort regarding new features and
    such should go into PHP 6. PHP 5.4 should happen after majority of work on PHP 6 is done.

    -Andrei

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupphp-internals @
categoriesphp
postedJun 3, '09 at 8:52p
activeJun 5, '09 at 9:34p
posts17
users10
websitephp.net

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase