Pierre Joye schreef: > Hi > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Jochem Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Lukas Kahwe Smith schreef: >>> On 07.10.2008, at 20:18, Lester Caine wrote: >>> >>>> What is the correct procedure to create a new driver, or rather clone >>>> the existing php_interbase so that we can build a proper Firebird >>>> version that actually uses the fbclient.dll rather than sharing the >>>> now incompatible GDS32.DLL client. Some people are starting to use >>>> Interbase in parallel with Firebird, but the driver can only access >>>> one client :( >> not that I give a **** about the windows interbase/firebird extension .. but >> .. > > When will you (all) understand that it is not only a windows problem? > The fact that windows is likely to do not have it in 5.3 is only a > side effect of the lack of developers around this extension (zero > developer). And seriously, comments like that do not have their place > in this list.
true enough, my apologies. > I could say the same about firebird and simply keep away > from the windows releases and let the firebird users deal with that. > >> I do use firebird and all this talk of dropping firebird support is kind of >> scary >> (well really scary actually) ... I am able to configure php with >> '--with-interbase' >> in 5.3alpha2 so I guess I don't need to worry. > > We are not talking about abandon it but moving out of core. Please > note that it will not happen tomorrow (5.3). But if nothing changes, I > do not see how this extension could remain in core without > maintainers, but that's not something I can decide on my own or for > 5.3 :) understood. my skills are not such that I could take on the responsibility, I would if I could ... as such I can only continue to study until some of C start to 'stick' > I find amazing that so many users are scary about loosing firebird in > core (they can always install it via pecl then) but I do not see too > much love around it (unit tests, bugs reports, patches, attempt to > contact the firebird developers, etc.). understood. I personally have no problem with grabbing it from pecl instead of it being bundled if that's the way it ends up going. >> effectively the extension for firebird already exists ... it just maps to >> the interbase >> function, if the fbird_*() aliases were removed and renamed copies the >> ibase_*() >> extensions functions created that then were built against the firebird >> client iso >> the interbase client you'd pretty much be there. technically the [firebird] >> extension >> would be new but is that really a deal breaker given that the complete API >> (fbird_*()) >> already exists? > > I do not understand this paragraph. um, I don't think I can explain it any better, probably I'm just on the wrong track anyway. I'm going to look at the phpt tests for interbase/firebird and see if I can add something useful. @Lester: fancy giving me a run down of problems/issues/whatevers related to php+firebird offlist? -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
