On 16/07/14 23:47, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> This is no worse than the current mess created by E_STRICT ... we wither >> > have to spend days reworking the code to respect E_STRICT ... or we >> > switch it off. For legacy systems it simply HAS to be switched off and >> > on the whole the code works. > You know, I’ve never asked you this before: why don’t you just turn off > E_STRICT?
Because it depends on the security status of third party libraries! All these bright ideas look good in isolation, but there is a much bigger picture to address, with perhaps a large percentage of systems still using legacy code. If I DON'T upgrade the code, then moving onto newer servers gets even more difficult. If there was unlimited time, then it would be possible to upgrade the remaining 5.2 systems to 5.3, tidy up so they can move on to 5.4, and then test out on 5.5. I'm working between 5.2 and 5.4 at the moment but I'm looking at all that is going on and wondering how much more work will be required once I have finally killed off the 5.2 sites! It would help if I could reliably retain the correct versions of third party libraries, but often that is not possible. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
