[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 16.10.02 12:13:57: > > It might be interesting to change only the extension name from oci8 to oci (which >would be less confusing when working with 9i). Unless your code relies on extension >names, it will still work.
Nice idea, but I guess this is sheer "cosmetics", or do you mean to change any behaviour? > "Merging" ... > > IS NOT: removing ora_* and OCI* while adding oracle_*. Nothing should > be removed as that would stop many applications from continuing > to work > > IT IS : adding a new extension which works as other DBs do > (oracle_connect(), oracle_num_rows(), oracle_close() etc). > Thus, one can still choose not to compile it relaying on the > old extensions, or use this one as it would be the only > compatible extension constantly maintained. > Well, either that new extension (oracle_*) is a rewrite of the oci8 ext (working with 8+), or you are intending to target oracle 6 -> 9i which I would not recommend seeing that there are *so much* differences between the versions. I think that for ora6 + 7 the current (outdated) ora_* ext is enough, and maybe we should concentrate on moving the whole thing forward. Of course we could rewrite the ext, and clean up what has grown historically, and I think this belongs into the planning for php5. Currently though, we should try to consolidate the oracle support so that people have a reliable way of programming for it without having to wait too long. (Consolidation = add data type support for any missing or new types, find a solution for the lob handling (this should be easier for a script developer IMO), and introduce some useful php.ini values (maybe even for default character set?)) Cu, Abdul -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
