Re: question regarding #67309

Hi, On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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). We didn't indeed, I was just giving you partial feedback. :) >> 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. With work supposedly being started on PHP6, now is the right time to make that decision. :) > 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. Exactly. Cheers, Andrey.