Re: question regarding #67309

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I wanted to ask what's our current consensus about feature requests like > > this: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=67309 > > The requested function wouldn't provide anything which isn't currently > > available via ini_get(), but it would be a bit natural to expect a get > > method where a set exists. > > > > -- > > Ferenc Kovács > > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu > > Hi, > > We talked about this with Yasuo in regards to some ext/session stuff > (although it was about setters) and agreed on keeping ini_set() only. > He even wrote a quick RFC about it: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-ini-functions > > Yeah, but AFAIR we didn't come up with an agreement (other than reverting out a couple of new functions from PHP 5.6.0). > My opinion in general is that we don't need functions that duplicate > ini_set(), ini_get() for a particular setting and existing ones should > be removed in the future instead of adding more to complement them. No > idea what other people think about it though. > I agree that providing multiple ways to achive the same thing is not really useful. But we also have to decide whether or not it is worth the BC to remove some existing function only because one can already do the same thing via ini_set. Another (albeit maybe a bit far-fetched) aspect is that somebody could assume that he/she can restrict a setting via disabling the appropriate function(via disable_functions) while that can be bypassed through the ini_set or vica versa. So the more ways we provide for the same setting to be set it is more likely that somebody forgets protecting one of those. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu