Re: replacing dbm_* with dba_*

On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Jim Winstead wrote: > 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. To achieve this, we need to - turn on all DBA options in configure.in by default - adapt the order of handlers in dba.c to match the one in AC_PREFERRED_DB_LIB - make the third parameter to dba_open optional and use the first handler, if the 3rd parameter isn't passed Current API differences (despite the order of arguments): - dba_nextkey() does not take the previous key (=>should ignore the key) - the dba_open() mode thing which the other Jim mentioned (=>adapt the code) > 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. :) That's called "Fakten schaffen" here in Germany. (Make/create/set facts?) -- Regards, Sascha Schumann Consultant