Hi Lonny,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Lonny Kapelushnik <lo...@lonnylot.com> wrote: > Morning, > > I propose deprecating two GD functions: imagettftext and imagettfbbox. > > The reasons I would like to deprecate them are: > 1. Their functionality is a subset of imagefttext and imageftbbox > 2. The imagettf* functions have the same requirements as the imageft* > functions > 3. The imagettf* functions parameters are compatible with the imageft* > functions parameters > > As far as I can tell the original reason for having both functions was > because PHP LIBGD is a custom implementation of LIBGD that had additional > functionality from the actual LIBGD. While this is still the case it seems > that now the required functions (gdImageStringFT and gdImageStringFTEx) > exist in both libraries. > > The only difference between imagettf* and imageft* functions is the > imagettf* functions do not provide the optional ‘extrainfo’ parameter > > The only step to migrate from the imagettf* functions to imageft* > functions is to change the function names from ‘imagettf*’ to ‘imageft*' > I'm glad to see you've taken the time to write this down after our small discussion on chat the other day :) According to the release process, an x+1.0.0 release may break API, so that would technically mean they can be removed for php.next granted an RFC is submitted and accepted before then. That said, I didn't see any clear guidelines as to how deprecation periods should be outlined, so I would expect some discussions to arise from that .. > I would like to create a timeline to deprecate and remove the imagettf* > functions. Providing a timeline will allow for: > 1. Clarity for which PHP functions to use going forward > 2. Ability to plan a migration to the new PHP functions > 3. Clarity for which PHP functions to improve in php-src > 4. Ability to clean up some of the GD code in php-src > >From what I could tell, the clean up will be relatively small because both functions already call the same underlying php_image*_common() function. > I will hold off on proposing an actual timeline for now. > I can implement any coding changes needed. > > Please let me know the general thoughts to deprecating these functions. If > the reception is positive I would like to create an RFC to discuss this in > full and come up with a timeline. > Personally I think, although the current functions are used a lot more often (~ 3x based on Google results), the simple fix makes it relatively easy to port existing code. >From what I could tell you don't have a Wiki account yet, so that would be the first step :) > > ––– > Hakuna Matata! > Lonny Kapelushnik > https://www.lonnylot.com > 732.685.9175 > > -- -- Tjerk
