Re: replacing dbm_* with dba_*

> Yes, that's right. But while it's true that it does not do that > currently, I don't feel like kicking out db.c completely. It does > other weired things such as the .lck thing which dba doesn't. True, that .lck thing is a bit of a hack. I added this because I needed to protect myself from two php scripts concurrently writing to a dbm file and there is no inherent protection against that in the dbm implementations. Now that we have user-level file locking, this feature could probably be deprecated, but we would need to warn people in big bold effervescent letters about this change and tell people to flock() the dbm file(s) themselves. It's a bit tricky though since some dbm implementations use two files and others just one. You would have to figure out which variety you are using and lock the appropriate files. Perhaps a dba_lock() user-level function would be appropriate to hide this bit of weirdness from people. > So, the big question is - shall dba become the official successor > of dbm? If so, their behaviour should be as equal as possible. Perhaps we can deprecate the dbm functions in PHP4. Maintaining two sets of similar functions is a PITA. -Rasmus