> Actually we have never used E_DEPRECATED to deprecate an entire > extension. We have deprecated specific functions and engine features, > but for entire extensions we have provided alternatives and/or waited > for them to become inconsequential and then moved them to pecl. But we > certainly never littered the extension with warnings before moving it out. > > How do you see adding E_DEPRECATED working here? Do we add it to every > function in the extension? Just to some? And then when we move the > extension to pecl do we pull the warnings back out? Surely it makes no > sense to move an extension out of core to pecl and spew E_DEPRECATED > warnings to people who explicitly choose to install it. > > -Rasmus >
Would it work to somehow have a pecl extension override the core-shipped extension? mysql did this when they allowed an external implementation of InnoDB to replace the InnoDB shipped with the product. This would allow turning off mysql deprecation warnings for those who know what they are doing and provide a migration path. -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer Tel.: +49-170-6381563 Mail: l...@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
