Am 06.08.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Andrew Nester:
6 авг. 2017 г., в 16:30, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> написал(а):
Andrew Nester wrote:
I am thinking about writing an RFC for this and continue discussion there.
Will it be a good idea?
You're apparently not very good at listening to suggestions, so I'll
be more direct.
I think you're wasting people's time until you actually try seeing if
PDO can be made to work with userland classes or not.
The next step should be you (or anyone else) attempting to make the
required changes to PDO to make it work, to discover what changes
would be needed to allow using userland classes.
If it isn't known what is needed to do to support it working, there is
no point raising the RFC.
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
The actually question is: Why not?
My understanding is that some of the internal code that calls userland
functions and methods is basically bogus.
I had a PR (which I haven't had the energy to get round to sorting
out) to make the SPL call userland constructors correctly:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1196
My surprise level would be zero, if there were similar issues in PDO
instantiating user classes, or other issues like the internal code
accessing properties directly without going through method access.
On the other hand, it might 'just work'.
cheers
Dan
Ack
Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate this.
Yes, I understand what you mean.
Fixing using this PDO attribute will solve issue with persistent PDO and will
allow to customize PDO in all cases.
But what I want to suggest is more straightforward way to customize PDO
behaviour and have proper type hints at the same time, because at my opinion
using PDO attributes for customization is not very straightforward.
I shown you some examples of use cases of these interfaces. As I think example
from Doctrine DBAL shows that this might be useful. Let me know if you would
like to see some others.
I would like to hear some arguments why my proposed solution will not work or
what exactly wrong with interfaces proposed and solution in general.
Thanks in advance.
Let me revive this thread. I submitted bug #74957 and therefore I am in
favor of the interfaces. My original motivation for the bug report was
having a custom implementation which would be able to catch from the
original PDO "MySQL server has gone away" and broken pipes, arising from
idle connections being reused after a while. This not only happens in
mostly idle daemons, but could also happen in this circumstance:
1. two connections are opened: log and work.
2. log connection is used.
3. work connection is used, blocking for several minutes.
4. log connection is used again.
Result is broken pipe for the log connection.
Now, I'm not too sure if the custom PDO implementation will help for
this use case (catching broken pipes), because in one app instance PDO
triggers an error and in another instance it causes a shutdown. Same app
version, both PHP 7.1.
The interfaces would still be a nice addition. They provide a good basis
for experimentation. They allow general straight forward customization
of PDO, i.e. not having to find out about the arcane and funny looking
customization method PDO:: ATTR_STATEMENT_CLASS, which is also
restricted to PDOStatement customization.
Best regards
Aljosha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
