Re: replacing dbm_* with dba_*

On Jun 20, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > 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. When I asked the question, it was my intention that the dba_* functions replace the dbm_* functions (become aliases), and then when no handler is specified in dbm_open(), the default is used, and hopefully we pick that default the same way that dbm_open currently picks its implementation (and perhaps also make it settable at configure time and in php3.ini). That default isn't stable if you suddenly install gdbm, but that's fine, as we haven't lost anything from where it is currently. Having these two chunks of code around is just silly. Have documentation around for both sets of functions is also silly (which is what sparked the idea initially). That's why I asked the same question about clibpdf and pdflib. I may end up doing this one myself, simply because I fear it won't get done any other way. (And its easier to ask for forgiveness than sort out a consensus. :) Jim