Re: Re: [RFC] Phasing out Serializable
| From: | Björn Larsson | Date: | Thu, 07 Jan 2021 23:23:27 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [RFC] Phasing out Serializable | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-112807@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Den 2021-01-06 kl. 17:51, skrev Nikita Popov:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:14 AM Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com <mailto:bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>> wrote:Den 2020-12-07 kl. 16:49, skrev Nikita Popov:On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:49 PM Björn Larsson<bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com <mailto:bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>>wrote:Den 2020-12-07 kl. 15:11, skrev Nikita Popov:Hi internals, Picking up a loose thread: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/custom_object_serialization<https://wiki.php.net/rfc/custom_object_serialization> introduced areplacement for Serializable in PHP 7.4, so it's time to think
aboutdeprecating and removing the old mechanism: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phase_out_serializable
<https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phase_out_serializable>This RFC follows a rather conversative approach. In PHP 8.1
there willbe a
deprecation warning if Serializable is implemented without also implementing __serialize() and __unserialize(). In PHP 9.0,
support forSerializable is dropped internally, and only the interface
retained. InPHP
10.0 the interface is dropped as well. Regards, NikitaI had to slightly extend this RFC to also deprecate & remove the PDO::FETCH_SERIALIZE mode, which is based on Serializable.
Doesn't seem tobe a big loss, as this fetch mode isn't working correctly in the
firstplace...
Given that 10.0 lies maybe ten years in the future if we have a
similartimeline >> like for 7.0 to 8.0. Is it then realistic to have
such along-term planning? For me it feels a bit more prudent to remove it completely in 9.0. Otherwise +1! I'd be also okay with dropping it entirely in PHP 9. That would
mean thatthere is no prior deprecation warning if you implement it
together with__serialize() and __unserialize() though, which is why I went
with theproposed timeline. From my own (technical) perspective, the case
is closedin PHP 9 either way, because that's where we can rip out support in unserialize(). Nikita
Not sure I understand why no deprecation warning is needed in 8.1,
if removing completely in 9.0?
The current proposed timeline only removes in PHP 9.0 what was deprecated in PHP 8.1. Possibly I'm misunderstanding what you have in mind here.
Ok, then I read it wrong, completely fine with above.
Not sure we had RFC's earlier with a ten year lifespan. So I have a concern about how realistic it would be ;-) The RFC is targetting two major versions, think it would be cleaner to target only one of them, not two. Now we have this RFC for 8.1 and we remove it it in the first step in 9.0 followed by removing it completely in 10.0. One motive for this as I understand it, is the <7.4 support. Anyway, come to think on the RFC "Remove PHP 4 Constructors" which targeted 7.0 and then it was removed completely in 8.0. Also thinking on the 7.4 deprecation RFC, where the items was removed in 8.0. So is it by having this RFC targeting 8.1, we get five extra years or is it the <7.4 support? r//Björn LAnyway, my main objection towards the proposed timeline is not so much about the functionality removed. It's more related with that I think an RFC that mandates what should happen in 10.0, maybe 10 years into the future feels a bit farfetched.Of course there could be exceptions for RFC's targeting PHP 10.0, but then I think it should be for something big, like replacing the SPL library etc.I'm not sure I understand what your actual concern here is. Yes, it's a long-term plan, but why is that a problem? Why should long-term planning only be limited to major changes? Even a simple deprecation already works on a 5 year timeline, between deprecation and removal. Of course, I have no idea whether I'll still be involved with the PHP project in ten years time, but I suspect there will always be someone who enjoys deleting deprecated code to carry out the will ;)