Hello Derick,
Thursday, May 11, 2006, 2:15:53 PM, you wrote:
> Hello!
> While I welcome new developments in either procedural or OO interfaces
> in PHP I do not agree with breaking BC (between 5.1 and 5.2 in this
> case) just for the sake of OO purity. In this example there is the
> following class:
> <?php
> abstract class ezcDbHandler extends PDO
> {
> public function __construct( $dbParams, $dsn )
> {
> $user = null;
> $pass = null;
> $driverOptions = null;
> }
> abstract static public function getName();
> static public function hasFeature( $feature )
> {
> return false;
> }
> }
?>>
It simply makes no sense at all! Actually if we go that road then what you
really want is two things: First fix your app design to something usable
where your code makes sense</sorry> Second allow static method interfaces
with bodies as well as non static abstract function in classes that have
bodies (aka default implementations).
> which now with PHP 5.2 throws:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/httpd/ezcomponents/trunk$ php-5.2dev -l
> /tmp/foo42.php
> Fatal error: Static function ezcDbHandler::getName() cannot be
> abstract in /tmp/foo42.php on line 11
> Errors parsing /tmp/foo42.php
> And it works fine in PHP 5.1.
It simply is a missing error condition and hadn't we just closed 5.1 i would
add that missing check to 5.1 too.
> Now I know that abstract static might not
> make much sense OO wise, but it doesn't hurt a single bit to have it
> here. Breaking this just because it isn't OO enough is just bogus. So,
> when are we going to remove this check so that older apps work again?
> regards,
> Derick
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
