The code is REALLY shaping up, rock solid compression, true integration of attachemnts and my personal favorite, a really sweet template engine. However, I am just curious of one of Acyd's common, frequent entries. His changing of count to sizeof, benchmark shows that they are identical in every way ( sizeof is an alias of count ) but why change it? From my own experiences, one should stick to one style... Just curious of why such a thing happened.
BTW, I have mixed feelings about the mysqli job, most people do not have mysqli but do run mysql 4.1, you stubbed them down to mysql 3 because they will not be able to use the new extension (its not exactly a walk in the park to get myqli to run on php 4...)
Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
Forum rules
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:18 pm
- Contact:
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
I was under the impression that mysqli was required to use 4.1 - is that not the case?dmaj007 wrote: The code is REALLY shaping up, rock solid compression, true integration of attachemnts and my personal favorite, a really sweet template engine. However, I am just curious of one of Acyd's common, frequent entries. His changing of count to sizeof, benchmark shows that they are identical in every way ( sizeof is an alias of count ) but why change it? From my own experiences, one should stick to one style... Just curious of why such a thing happened.
BTW, I have mixed feelings about the mysqli job, most people do not have mysqli but do run mysql 4.1, you stubbed them down to mysql 3 because they will not be able to use the new extension (its not exactly a walk in the park to get myqli to run on php 4...)
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
Nope that is not the case, incase you use the old-passwords option like I currently do, however as soon as phpBB 3.0.0 gets released im planning on migrating to PHP5 anyway with MySQLi.
-
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
That is all nice and well but mysqli is not enabled by default, most people do not get access to their php.ini files.
- Techie-Micheal
- Registered User
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:11 am
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
People do not have to use mysql 3 just because mysql4.1 is not yet properly supported ... People can still use mysql 4.0.x.dmaj007 wrote: The code is REALLY shaping up, rock solid compression, true integration of attachemnts and my personal favorite, a really sweet template engine. However, I am just curious of one of Acyd's common, frequent entries. His changing of count to sizeof, benchmark shows that they are identical in every way ( sizeof is an alias of count ) but why change it? From my own experiences, one should stick to one style... Just curious of why such a thing happened.
BTW, I have mixed feelings about the mysqli job, most people do not have mysqli but do run mysql 4.1, you stubbed them down to mysql 3 because they will not be able to use the new extension (its not exactly a walk in the park to get myqli to run on php 4...)
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
Pardon but there are no 'people', 99% of the time, a USER will be installing this on a hosted solution. Will the host say "Well, since you can't reap the benefits of such and such a function, I will upgrade the DB, which has other customer's data creating downtime and a chance of failure." In reality, your host will not upgrade your server just because you ask for it. the mysql 3 and 4 DBs were very similar.. The install should change mysql 3 to mysql 3/4 and mysql 4 to mysqli
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
The mysql.php layer is able to handle mysql 3, mysql 4.0.x and mysql 4.1.x. It just does not make use of 4.1.x features which is the only bugger here. The mysql4.php file is using the mysqli functions. Now, i admit the naming convention here is not very clear and we might change this to clearly reflect the underlying functionality.
I think this falls under "personal preference"?His changing of count to sizeof, benchmark shows that they are identical in every way ( sizeof is an alias of count ) but why change it?
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
It's rare but some hosts will. Mine does.dmaj007 wrote: In reality, your host will not upgrade your server just because you ask for it.
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
Then change host if they dont help you outdmaj007 wrote: Pardon but there are no 'people', 99% of the time, a USER will be installing this on a hosted solution. Will the host say "Well, since you can't reap the benefits of such and such a function, I will upgrade the DB, which has other customer's data creating downtime and a chance of failure." In reality, your host will not upgrade your server just because you ask for it. the mysql 3 and 4 DBs were very similar.. The install should change mysql 3 to mysql 3/4 and mysql 4 to mysqli
Re: Acyd's Antics, an inconsistency in the code
Why? Because they won't be able to use mysqli? A user would not go thru the trouble of finding another host, switch DBs, reroute DNS. I say this because phpBB is intended to be a forum solution, it is not a complete website. Regardless, the mysql4 and mysql3 drivers were IDENTICAL before he brought mysqli into the mix. I am just saying that to remove confusion of a user, they should rename mysql 3 to mysql 3/4 and mysql 4 to mysqli in the install.