FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.

Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » part 2 - file exists not working
Show: Today's Messages :: Unread Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
| Subscribe to topic | Bookmark topic 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182942 is a reply to message #182901] Thu, 26 September 2013 02:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Curtis Dyer is currently offline  Curtis Dyer
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
Twayne wrote:

> On 2013-09-24 10:41 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Tuesday 24 September 2013 10:34, in comp.lang.php,
>> PointedEars(at)web(dot)de wrote:
>>
>>> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>
>>>> noreply(at)example(dot)com wrote:

<snip>

>>>> If $result is not FALSE, you loop through it using
>>>> mysql_fetch_array() or one of it's child functions
>>>> (mysql_fetch_row or mysql_fetch_assoc()) to retrieve
>>>> individual rows

<snip code>

>>> JFTR: The mysql extension is *deprecated* and will be
>>> *removed*:
>>>
>>> <http://php.net/mysql_fetch_array>
>>
>> A very valid point that we've repeatedly made to richard. And
>> that he has considered and rejected.
>>
>>> Use mysqli or pdo_mysql instead.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>
> Mmm, not so valid; it's going to be a good long time before it's
> deprecated on most servers.

Arbitrary server admins don't determine when features of PHP
become deprecated, the PHP development team does.

> What's always neglected with that
> little bit of wisdom is IN WHAT is it being deprecated and when
> is it expected to be all that's available? Hell, many sites are
> still offering a choice of versions, usually 2, sometimes 3.

When giving people advice about writing code, it's helpful to
encourage the best possible practices. The mysql extension is
indeed deprecated, and people learning PHP ought to be made well
aware of this.

While your code may continue to work on your system, the same
cannot be said of everyone who takes advice from posts such as
those in this thread.

If you would like your code to be as correct and portable as
possible--if you care at all about writing good code--why would
you dismiss completely that an extension is deprecated?

> The scare tactics are silly and that's why people don't worry
> about it.

People are trying to provide helpful information. No one here is
employing scare tactics.

--
Curtis Dyer
<?$x='<?$x=%c%s%c;printf($x,39,$x,39);?>';printf($x,39,$x,39);?>
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182946 is a reply to message #182920] Thu, 26 September 2013 16:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Doug Miller is currently offline  Doug Miller
Messages: 171
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
David Robley <me(at)home(dot)invalid> wrote in news:l1ttfv$nt8$1(at)news(dot)albasani(dot)net:

> richard wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:20:58 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com> wrote in
>>> news:6tzjiffjaqy6(dot)1rfg283mi0q9m(dot)dlg(at)40tude(dot)net:
>>>
>>>> if ($go="go") {echo "x";}
>>>
>>> Richard, how many times is this now that someone has had to remind you of
>>> the difference between = and == ?
>>
>>
>> because it is one of those little things I keep forgetting.
>> Like a ; or some other minor syntax error.
>
> Here is a tip for you to manage this particular problem - reverse the order
> of the test values; if you forget an = you'll trigger a syntax error.
>
> if ("go" = $go) {echo "x";} // triggers an error

Predictable result: richard posts here asking why he's getting the error.

> if ("go" == $go) {echo "x";} // works as expected
>
He can't remember the difference between = and ==, how do you expect him to remember
that?
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182947 is a reply to message #182908] Thu, 26 September 2013 17:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bill is currently offline  bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2013-09-24 9:39 PM, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:08:22 -0400, Twayne <nobody(at)spamcop(dot)net> wrote:
>
>>> If you check now and discover that yes, your server does in fact also
>>> support mysqli_* functions already, then you can start migrating your
>>> code from mysql_* functions to mysqli_* functions now so that you won't
>>> get caught out in a future upgrade it
>>
>> Unless it's of no benefit; you already said they may both exist and if
>> that's the case and one gains no benefit from changing, well, ... .
>
> At some point there definitely will be a benefit - that all his pages
> continue to work at all. mysql will be discontinued although no one
> knows just when. If he waits too long he will be stuck and it may take
> weeks for him to make the changes.
>
> I converted all my mysql to mysqli this year - a couple hundred pages.
> It was not a trivial chore. Some changes could be automated and some
> could not. Some functions are a simple search-and-replace, some are
> only similar, and some are a lot different.
>

It's irrelevant what YOU did/do. You need to do a little more research
before continuing your vagueries, really.
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182948 is a reply to message #182911] Thu, 26 September 2013 17:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bill is currently offline  bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2013-09-24 9:54 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
....

>
> There is a solid reason that the manual says you should NOT be using it
> since it will not exist in the future.

"Should" being the operative word here. Yes, it should be done but at
one's leisure so far, not in anticipation of anything disappearing
TOMORROW as the egomaniacs are intimating. It's a logical, meaningful
progression of technology; what gets my goats are the egoes running
around intimating the end of the world if you don't make the change
yesterday; they aren't just trying to educate ... far from it.
Too many people are put off by the "must do" attitude which contains
no useful information; only that it's going to be the end of the world
for everyone which is clearly not the case. Yes, in time it's 99.9%
likely to occur as expected but ordering people to stop using something
has absolutely no benefit to it. Nor does it ingratiate a single person.

> ...

....
>
> It exists not so you can build a new site upon it. It does so to allow
> those who in the past had only that function and gives them reasonable
> amount of time to switch to the new one.

And a logical, reasonable bit of pro-activity from the PTB.

>
>>
>> ...

....

>>
>> Good advice. But if someone is so new that phpinfo.php & 'sysinfo' is
>> news to them, well, they've a lot more than mysql to get up to date on.
>
> This is the one statement that I agree on with a but. We have pointed
> out the function that is going bye bye and gave links on how to use the
> new one which does not differ all too much from the former in the
> context of the OPs question. If that is too difficult then I do think
> we (he) is going to and has had a long frustrating journey.

I'll buy that. Out of all the posters in this thread, you're the one
making the most sense and keeping logic and "people" in mind. That's
something too many people miss out on these days.
>
....

> In all professions you have to stay current with new way of doing things
> and toss the old.
>
> You have to learn how to keep up to date with the server needs, it is
> part of the job. And by keeping up to date, your site is less likely to
> break and cause even more money when you have a down site and still have
> to find where it broke and also to learn the new functions anyhow.
>
> Why not do it while the site is still functioning and no one public is
> the wiser.

Well said!

I'm not going to say much more if anything at all on this thread; my
only intent was to bring some sanity to it and negate the armegeddoners
wasting so much time on the way they think they can order people around.
That sort of leadership NEVER works for long.

Cheers,

Twayne`



>
>
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182949 is a reply to message #182909] Thu, 26 September 2013 17:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bill is currently offline  bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2013-09-24 9:43 PM, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:14:09 -0400, Twayne <nobody(at)spamcop(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-09-24 6:40 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
>> ...
>>>> >
>>>> > JFTR: The mysql extension is *deprecated* and will be *removed*:
>>
>> Simple scare tactics from over-sized egos. It's silly.
>
> Huh? Can you explain that? The warnings from the folks that decide
> seem clear enough: http://www.php.net/mysql_query
>
> How is that a scare tactic or about over-sized egos?
>
>

But that little tidbit of information has not been included in any of
the foregoing posts. Why? Control attempts of the few.
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182950 is a reply to message #182942] Thu, 26 September 2013 18:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bill is currently offline  bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2013-09-26 2:01 AM, Curtis Dyer wrote:
....

>
> Arbitrary server admins don't determine when features of PHP
> become deprecated, the PHP development team does.

Say WHAT?
... what makes you think that current servers, which almost all offer
at least TWO versions of PHP to its users will stop doing that? Some
even offer THREE I've come across in the past.
DEPRECATED means removed from a VERSION of the language, not ALL
versions!

And just who is going to force server admins to have a dictated
version of PHP available and no other?

It's myopic crap-thinking like that, that gets my attention here. And
besides, mysql i isn't all that different from mysql, period. It's just
not the Armageddon arrival as some are working so hard to point out.
If you want to help, TEACH ; otherwise phase out. Forget the vague
warnings and scenarios of web sites not working overnight. You have a
version of PHP SET for your site on any good server, and the appearance
of a new version is NOT going to automatically be applied to your sites!!

....

> When giving people advice about writing code, it's helpful to
> encourage the best possible practices. The mysql extension is
> indeed deprecated, and people learning PHP ought to be made well
> aware of this.

True, and that should be your job; NOT making gregarious claims that all
sites will stop working if/when a server's admin employs a new version
of a program!
>
> While your code may continue to work on your system, the same
> cannot be said of everyone who takes advice from posts such as
> those in this thread.

THEN SAY SO! Quit hiding behind the depracated but I'll not impart any
further comment mentaility!



>
> If you would like your code to be as correct and portable as
> possible--if you care at all about writing good code--why would
> you dismiss completely that an extension is deprecated?

Where did that come from? You mean using a different version, when the
latest version provides NO improvements, should automatically be
implemented? That's nonsense.

>
>> The scare tactics are silly and that's why people don't worry
>> about it.
>
> People are trying to provide helpful information. No one here is
> employing scare tactics.

No, they are not; they are employing ego-driven scare tactics and saying
nothing but it's depracated - hell, in this whole thread the version
number has never even been mentioned in any way -- why is THAT?
>

Cheers,

Twayne`
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182953 is a reply to message #182947] Thu, 26 September 2013 18:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Richard Yates is currently offline  Richard Yates
Messages: 86
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:20:00 -0400, Twayne <nobody(at)spamcop(dot)net> wrote:

> On 2013-09-24 9:39 PM, Richard Yates wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:08:22 -0400, Twayne <nobody(at)spamcop(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>>> If you check now and discover that yes, your server does in fact also
>>>> support mysqli_* functions already, then you can start migrating your
>>>> code from mysql_* functions to mysqli_* functions now so that you won't
>>>> get caught out in a future upgrade it
>>>
>>> Unless it's of no benefit; you already said they may both exist and if
>>> that's the case and one gains no benefit from changing, well, ... .
>>
>> At some point there definitely will be a benefit - that all his pages
>> continue to work at all. mysql will be discontinued although no one
>> knows just when. If he waits too long he will be stuck and it may take
>> weeks for him to make the changes.
>>
>> I converted all my mysql to mysqli this year - a couple hundred pages.
>> It was not a trivial chore. Some changes could be automated and some
>> could not. Some functions are a simple search-and-replace, some are
>> only similar, and some are a lot different.
>>
> It's irrelevant what YOU did/do. You need to do a little more research
> before continuing your vagueries, really.


You really are getting way off base on this one, Twayne. I offered my
experience as it may be useful in your deciding when to convert
(because you really will have to at some point). I do not need to do
more research about how I did it because it was recent and I kept some
notes. If it was too vague to help you, please ask some specdific
questions.
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182954 is a reply to message #182948] Thu, 26 September 2013 18:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Richard Yates is currently offline  Richard Yates
Messages: 86
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:39:34 -0400, Twayne <nobody(at)spamcop(dot)net> wrote:

> On 2013-09-24 9:54 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> There is a solid reason that the manual says you should NOT be using it
>> since it will not exist in the future.
>
> "Should" being the operative word here. Yes, it should be done but at
> one's leisure so far, not in anticipation of anything disappearing
> TOMORROW as the egomaniacs are intimating. It's a logical, meaningful
> progression of technology; what gets my goats are the egoes running
> around intimating the end of the world if you don't make the change
> yesterday; they aren't just trying to educate ... far from it.

Chill, Twayne. No one has come anywhere near the caricature you
describe. They have simply quoted the php manual. And to think that
anyone would recommend converting out of ego just does not make any
sense at all. No one here has any investment in your web pages or any
financial interest in php. How in the world do you see ego involved?
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182956 is a reply to message #182953] Thu, 26 September 2013 19:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 9/26/2013 6:43 PM, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:20:00 -0400, Twayne <nobody(at)spamcop(dot)net> wrote:
\
>> It's irrelevant what YOU did/do. You need to do a little more research
>> before continuing your vagueries, really.
>
>
> You really are getting way off base on this one, Twayne. I offered my
> experience as it may be useful in your deciding when to convert
> (because you really will have to at some point). I do not need to do
> more research about how I did it because it was recent and I kept some
> notes. If it was too vague to help you, please ask some specdific
> questions.
>

Don't feed the troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182957 is a reply to message #182950] Thu, 26 September 2013 21:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Curtis Dyer is currently offline  Curtis Dyer
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
Twayne wrote:

[Twayne's quoted text below has been rewrapped]

> On 2013-09-26 2:01 AM, Curtis Dyer wrote: ...
>
>> Arbitrary server admins don't determine when features of PHP
>> become deprecated, the PHP development team does.
>
> Say WHAT? ... what makes you think that current servers, which
> almost all offer at least TWO versions of PHP to its users will
> stop doing that?

None of what I wrote has anything to do with this.

> Some even offer THREE I've come across in the past. DEPRECATED
> means removed from a VERSION of the language, not ALL versions!

No, deprecated means that a feature or practice is considered
dated in favor of something else, and that one should avoid using
it, where possible. It is by no means a strict mandate that you
must never use the feature. (Although, you obviously can't use the
feature whenever you move to the new version in which a deprecated
feature is dropped.)

> And just who is going to force server admins to have a dictated
> version of PHP available and no other?

No one, but I never wrote or implied anything like that.

> It's myopic crap-thinking like that, that gets my attention
> here.

It's not a big deal. If you're writing new code, today, there's no
reason not to avoid using the mysql extension. That's all. I'm not
warning to toss away or fix old code *right now*.

And, if anything, it's myopic thinking to write code depending on
a deprecated extension in situations where you don't need to.

> And besides, mysql i isn't all that different from mysql,
> period. It's just not the Armageddon arrival as some are working
> so hard to point out.

This is a ridiculous straw man.

> If you want to help, TEACH ; otherwise phase out.

What do you mean? What do you think trying to inform people about
best practices is all about? No one here is imposing mandates on
anyone. We can just offer the best advice as we're able, and it's
up to the OP and others who might read the advice to do with it
what they will.

> Forget the vague warnings and scenarios of web sites not working
> overnight.

No one has written this. When I read Thomas's post upthread, for
example, it read as a helpful aside to me. It was quite clear and
concise. There's nothing vague about informing people about a
deprecated feature.

Again, no one has written that people's code will break overnight.

<snip>

>> When giving people advice about writing code, it's helpful to
>> encourage the best possible practices. The mysql extension is
>> indeed deprecated, and people learning PHP ought to be made
>> well aware of this.
>
> True, and that should be your job;

Usenet is not my job; Usenet contributors don't get paid for
posting. I generally post here in the event that I feel I'm able
to provide what little help I can. Further, newsgroups like this
have been a big help to me, so contributing back is a nice change
of pace.

> NOT making gregarious claims

I've never heard claims described as gregarious. Perhaps you meant
grandiose? If that's the case, I made none.

The mysql extension is deprecated, but this has nothing to do with
magically breaking Web servers. It's a simple warning to
developers (and sever admins), that, at some point, the extension
will be phased out.

It's a helpful warning and is intended to give people time to
prepare however they choose. For some people, the concern probably
isn't immediate. That's fine. However, there's absolutely nothing
wrong with suggesting to beginners that they ought to use instead
mysqli or the PDO MySQL driver.

There are other reasons for using alternatives to the mysql
extension that go beyond the fact that it's deprecated (although,
they likely have contributed to the fact that it has become
deprecated). For example, the fact that you can use prepared
statements or, in PDO's case, it provides an abstract interface to
allow developers to reuse code for multiple databases.

> that all sites will stop working if/when a server's admin
> employs a new version of a program!
>>
>> While your code may continue to work on your system, the same
>> cannot be said of everyone who takes advice from posts such as
>> those in this thread.
>
> THEN SAY SO!

I have written it in the post you quoted. Although, I didn't write
in all-caps, so perhaps you missed it.

<snip>

--
Curtis Dyer
<?$x='<?$x=%c%s%c;printf($x,39,$x,39);?>';printf($x,39,$x,39);?>
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182958 is a reply to message #182957] Thu, 26 September 2013 22:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 9/26/2013 9:47 PM, Curtis Dyer wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>
> [Twayne's quoted text below has been rewrapped]
>
>> On 2013-09-26 2:01 AM, Curtis Dyer wrote: ...
>>
>>> Arbitrary server admins don't determine when features of PHP
>>> become deprecated, the PHP development team does.
>>
>> Say WHAT? ... what makes you think that current servers, which
>> almost all offer at least TWO versions of PHP to its users will
>> stop doing that?
>
> None of what I wrote has anything to do with this.
>
>> Some even offer THREE I've come across in the past. DEPRECATED
>> means removed from a VERSION of the language, not ALL versions!
>
> No, deprecated means that a feature or practice is considered
> dated in favor of something else, and that one should avoid using
> it, where possible. It is by no means a strict mandate that you
> must never use the feature. (Although, you obviously can't use the
> feature whenever you move to the new version in which a deprecated
> feature is dropped.)
>
>> And just who is going to force server admins to have a dictated
>> version of PHP available and no other?
>
> No one, but I never wrote or implied anything like that.
>
>> It's myopic crap-thinking like that, that gets my attention
>> here.
>
> It's not a big deal. If you're writing new code, today, there's no
> reason not to avoid using the mysql extension. That's all. I'm not
> warning to toss away or fix old code *right now*.
>
> And, if anything, it's myopic thinking to write code depending on
> a deprecated extension in situations where you don't need to.
>
>> And besides, mysql i isn't all that different from mysql,
>> period. It's just not the Armageddon arrival as some are working
>> so hard to point out.
>
> This is a ridiculous straw man.
>
>> If you want to help, TEACH ; otherwise phase out.
>
> What do you mean? What do you think trying to inform people about
> best practices is all about? No one here is imposing mandates on
> anyone. We can just offer the best advice as we're able, and it's
> up to the OP and others who might read the advice to do with it
> what they will.
>
>> Forget the vague warnings and scenarios of web sites not working
>> overnight.
>
> No one has written this. When I read Thomas's post upthread, for
> example, it read as a helpful aside to me. It was quite clear and
> concise. There's nothing vague about informing people about a
> deprecated feature.
>
> Again, no one has written that people's code will break overnight.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> When giving people advice about writing code, it's helpful to
>>> encourage the best possible practices. The mysql extension is
>>> indeed deprecated, and people learning PHP ought to be made
>>> well aware of this.
>>
>> True, and that should be your job;
>
> Usenet is not my job; Usenet contributors don't get paid for
> posting. I generally post here in the event that I feel I'm able
> to provide what little help I can. Further, newsgroups like this
> have been a big help to me, so contributing back is a nice change
> of pace.
>
>> NOT making gregarious claims
>
> I've never heard claims described as gregarious. Perhaps you meant
> grandiose? If that's the case, I made none.
>
> The mysql extension is deprecated, but this has nothing to do with
> magically breaking Web servers. It's a simple warning to
> developers (and sever admins), that, at some point, the extension
> will be phased out.
>
> It's a helpful warning and is intended to give people time to
> prepare however they choose. For some people, the concern probably
> isn't immediate. That's fine. However, there's absolutely nothing
> wrong with suggesting to beginners that they ought to use instead
> mysqli or the PDO MySQL driver.
>
> There are other reasons for using alternatives to the mysql
> extension that go beyond the fact that it's deprecated (although,
> they likely have contributed to the fact that it has become
> deprecated). For example, the fact that you can use prepared
> statements or, in PDO's case, it provides an abstract interface to
> allow developers to reuse code for multiple databases.
>
>> that all sites will stop working if/when a server's admin
>> employs a new version of a program!
>>>
>>> While your code may continue to work on your system, the same
>>> cannot be said of everyone who takes advice from posts such as
>>> those in this thread.
>>
>> THEN SAY SO!
>
> I have written it in the post you quoted. Although, I didn't write
> in all-caps, so perhaps you missed it.
>
> <snip>
>

Curtis,

Please don't feed the troll...


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182959 is a reply to message #182958] Thu, 26 September 2013 23:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Richard Yates is currently offline  Richard Yates
Messages: 86
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:56:49 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:

> Curtis,
>
> Please don't feed the troll...

Disagree with the characterization. Trolls post solely to provoke
responses as a kind of vandalism. Twayne has posted genuine questions
here. He certainly is stuck on this issue and has greatly mispercieved
the posts on the topic, but there is no reason to think that he is
being disingenuous.
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182960 is a reply to message #182959] Thu, 26 September 2013 23:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 9/26/2013 11:11 PM, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:56:49 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Curtis,
>>
>> Please don't feed the troll...
>
> Disagree with the characterization. Trolls post solely to provoke
> responses as a kind of vandalism. Twayne has posted genuine questions
> here. He certainly is stuck on this issue and has greatly mispercieved
> the posts on the topic, but there is no reason to think that he is
> being disingenuous.
>

You haven't read his posts very closely, then. Examples:

Curtis Dyer:

When giving people advice about writing code, it's helpful to
encourage the best possible practices. The mysql extension is
indeed deprecated, and people learning PHP ought to be made well
aware of this.

Twayne:

True, and that should be your job; NOT making gregarious claims that all
sites will stop working if/when a server's admin employs a new version
of a program!

(which Curtis NEVER claimed)

And later in that same post:

Twayne:
The scare tactics are silly and that's why people don't worry
about it.

Curtis Dyer:
People are trying to provide helpful information. No one here is
employing scare tactics.

Twayne:
No, they are not; they are employing ego-driven scare tactics and saying
nothing but it's depracated - hell, in this whole thread the version
number has never even been mentioned in any way -- why is THAT?

(But then ANYONE who disagrees with Twayne has an ego problem).

There are others - I'll leave them to you to find. I'm not going to
repeat everything he said in this thread.

And he's a well-known troll from other threads in this newsgroup, also.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182961 is a reply to message #182958] Fri, 27 September 2013 02:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Curtis Dyer is currently offline  Curtis Dyer
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> On 9/26/2013 9:47 PM, Curtis Dyer wrote:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>
>> [Twayne's quoted text below has been rewrapped]
>>
>>> On 2013-09-26 2:01 AM, Curtis Dyer wrote: ...

<snip>

>>> And besides, mysql i isn't all that different from mysql,
>>> period. It's just not the Armageddon arrival as some are
>>> working so hard to point out.
>>
>> This is a ridiculous straw man.

<snip similar exchanges>

> Curtis,
>
> Please don't feed the troll...

I try to resort to the killfile as a last resort, so assumed the
best in this case. I merely wanted to clear up my points just to be
certain; I've seen too many misunderstandings via textual
communication.

Regardless, I can't be any clearer than I am now, and won't be
provoked into a prolonged argument.

I see where you're coming from, though.

--
Curtis Dyer
<?$x='<?$x=%c%s%c;printf($x,39,$x,39);?>';printf($x,39,$x,39);?>
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182963 is a reply to message #182954] Sat, 28 September 2013 13:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bill is currently offline  bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2013-09-26 6:47 PM, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:39:34 -0400, Twayne <nobody(at)spamcop(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-09-24 9:54 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> There is a solid reason that the manual says you should NOT be using it
>>> since it will not exist in the future.
>>
>> "Should" being the operative word here. Yes, it should be done but at
>> one's leisure so far, not in anticipation of anything disappearing
>> TOMORROW as the egomaniacs are intimating. It's a logical, meaningful
>> progression of technology; what gets my goats are the egoes running
>> around intimating the end of the world if you don't make the change
>> yesterday; they aren't just trying to educate ... far from it.
>
> Chill, Twayne. No one has come anywhere near the caricature you
> describe. They have simply quoted the php manual. And to think that
> anyone would recommend converting out of ego just does not make any
> sense at all. No one here has any investment in your web pages or any
> financial interest in php. How in the world do you see ego involved?
>
The "ego" I see is that of the person who thinks the world should follow
them blindly. They are more interested in being "seen" as touting the
line they've used and simpy turning a blind eye to reason; because
"they" said it, vague and devoid of detail as the mantras they espouse,
and no one should bring reason or timing or cost or the reality of such
updating. It's enough they made one vague statement, according to them.
What started out as a decent discussion of some of the issues
quickly degenerated to single-sentence warnings and sigs about MYSQL and
it extensions by a predictable few here.

Such is clearly not the case and these "chosen few" are doing themselves
and anyone a great disservice by intimating it must be done not only
now, but quickly. That comes very close to a disservice to anyone
reading their tripe who suddenly stops development of their site and
might let everythng go and rather than their site progressing they
simply wast time better spent on waiting for an opportunity to get
serious about the changes so "direly needed" when it just isn't so.
It gets worse too when you come across things like one's server
magically changing their PHP version when one is signed up to use a
different version available on their server sites. Those people either
need to go to better server sites or, more likely, face the truth about
the whole scenario.
My own would never do that to me: what they might do is notify me
a new version is imminent so I can think about what I want to do, and
what they DO do would be to notify me not only of the update, which I'd
love to havem but also of what older versions are still going to be
available. Even back in the "old" days when I was starting out with a
freebie Tripod site, they did that sort of thing.
If a server admins doesn't communicate with their clients, then
there will at least be a page available that keeps their customers up to
date on what's happening on their servers; sort of a what's new page.
And if their support is worth anything, they'll briefly but
factually discuss anything about the servers that you'd like to know and
at least mine tells me if they don't know the answer.
A server that only offers one version of PHP say, and changes it
without notice or schedule, well, should be left for a better server.

Lest this turn into a troll-fest I'm probably not going to say a lot
more about the subject unless it's a reasonably worded post, such as
yours was.

Aside: It's been years now but I always recall the post that seemed to
make se nse to me, but not entirely. When I asked this mvp for his
impression of why we should do what he was pushing, his response was
"Because I said so and I know more than you." It always makes me laugh,
albeit softly.

Regards,

Twayne`
OT Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182964 is a reply to message #182957] Sat, 28 September 2013 14:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bill is currently offline  bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
You deserve respect and I am NOT trying to take that, or credibility
away from you. That said, I do have a couple of observations if you will:


On 2013-09-26 9:47 PM, Curtis Dyer wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>
> [Twayne's quoted text below has been rewrapped]
>
>> On 2013-09-26 2:01 AM, Curtis Dyer wrote: ...
>>
>>> Arbitrary server admins don't determine when features of PHP
>>> become deprecated, the PHP development team does.
>>
>> Say WHAT? ... what makes you think that current servers, which
>> almost all offer at least TWO versions of PHP to its users will
>> stop doing that?
>
> None of what I wrote has anything to do with this.

You also didn't offer any enlightenment on what you meant, nor the
question.

If you are the author of the >>> comments above, then I think you did.
Or do you consider the word "Arbitrary" as an out? Or that there can
only be ONE meaning to PHP development team?
>
>> Some even offer THREE I've come across in the past. DEPRECATED
>> means removed from a VERSION of the language, not ALL versions!
>
> No, deprecated means that a feature or practice

(IN A VERSION OF THE APP IN QUESTION)

is considered
> dated in favor of something else, and that one should avoid using
> it, where possible.

Of course.


It is by no means a strict mandate that you
> must never use the feature. (Although, you obviously can't use the
> feature whenever you move to the new version in which a deprecated
> feature is dropped.)
That's a little obvious, too. But, unlike many, they are trying to say
that the latest versions with the deprecations is all that will suddenly
be available! It's just not true.

>
>> And just who is going to force server admins to have a dictated
>> version of PHP available and no other?
>
> No one, but I never wrote or implied anything like that.
>
>> It's myopic crap-thinking like that, that gets my attention
>> here.
>
> It's not a big deal. If you're writing new code, today, there's no
> reason not to avoid using the mysql extension. That's all. I'm not
> warning to toss away or fix old code *right now*.

Perhaps not; I don't take names as a rule and only respond to words
within a post. Most mail clients and readers should be able to aptly
show just who the response is/was to.
>
> And, if anything, it's myopic thinking to write code depending on
> a deprecated extension in situations where you don't need to.

Not if you don't intend to use that particular version yet. Change-over
will come slowly (it's been a slow boat from China so far) . Being
prepared and keeping track of the trends is definitely important. Anyone
with a site they value at all should indeed be keeping track of trends
AND where their server admin is; normally it's there to find.
>
>> And besides, mysql i isn't all that different from mysql,
>> period. It's just not the Armageddon arrival as some are working
>> so hard to point out.
>
> This is a ridiculous straw man.

No, it's not, really. I don't mean a couple of editor search & destroys
will fix it all up, but it's not that complex unless you have spaghetti
to start with. Actually, IMO, it's a bit simpler in many areas. I often
don't see the "why" of changes that are made, but then I'm not one of
the authors either. At the moment, the 'i' version doesn't offer me
anything I need and answers very few of my "wants". I really consider
it a natural progression of "life".
>
>> If you want to help, TEACH ; otherwise phase out.
>
> What do you mean? What do you think trying to inform people about
> best practices is all about? No one here is imposing mandates on
> anyone. We can just offer the best advice as we're able, and it's
> up to the OP and others who might read the advice to do with it
> what they will.

I mean, the chosen few who are pushing the line about change now or
suffer are not doing anyone any kind of assistance. Blind statements and
warnings without meat just aren't taken seriously. If one wants to
spread they word then they also include anm authentic, realistic link or
two to support their statements. So far I only recall one poster who did
that, but only after this prodding started.
>
>> Forget the vague warnings and scenarios of web sites not working
>> overnight.
>
> No one has written this. When I read Thomas's post upthread, for
> example, it read as a helpful aside to me. It was quite clear and
> concise. There's nothing vague about informing people about a
> deprecated feature.

Yes, it has been written and here in this thread. And I believe it IS
vague when one makes such a statement without any kind of reference to a
cite where factual information can be found.

>
> Again, no one has written that people's code will break overnight.

Yes, they have; at least twice it's been brought up, maybe more because
there are some posts I mostly skip over or don't even read like those
from stuckle; he's all troll and nothing more in my books now.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> When giving people advice about writing code, it's helpful to
>>> encourage the best possible practices. The mysql extension is
>>> indeed deprecated, and people learning PHP ought to be made
>>> well aware of this.
>>
>> True, and that should be your job;
>
> Usenet is not my job;

No, if you're going to participate on Usenet, forums or whatever, you
make it your job to be helpful and prevent erroneous impressions. If you
wish to be paid for it, then I'm afraid you're in the wrong place.

....
>
> It's a helpful warning and is intended to give people time to
> prepare however they choose. For some people, the concern probably
> isn't immediate. That's fine. However, there's absolutely nothing
> wrong with suggesting to beginners that they ought to use instead
> mysqli or the PDO MySQL driver.

Agreed

....

Regards,

Twayne`
Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182965 is a reply to message #182963] Sat, 28 September 2013 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Richard Yates is currently offline  Richard Yates
Messages: 86
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:58:10 -0400, Twayne <nobody(at)spamcop(dot)net> wrote:

> The "ego" I see is that of the person who thinks the world should follow
> them blindly.

But no one has said to do what they recommend just because they say
so. Everyone cited reasons for their recommendations.

> Such is clearly not the case and these "chosen few" are doing themselves
> and anyone a great disservice by intimating it must be done not only
> now, but quickly.

No one said now or quickly. All said that it will happen some time and
gave reasons why converting sooner might be better than later. One
factor in my decision was realizing that, as I accumulated more
mysql_() code, it meant that the inevitable conversion would be bigger
chore than if I did it sooner.

> serious about the changes so "direly needed" when it just isn't so.

No one said direly needed.

> My own would never do that to me: what they might do is notify me
> a new version is imminent so I can think about what I want to do,

No one said that the server admins would not give you warning. What
you do NOT know is how much warning you will get COMPARED to how long
it will take you to convert. That's why I wrote that it is a
non-trivial task. It took many steps, and I found little guidance. The
project ultimately worked out okay, but I can easily imagine having
gotten desperately stuck. If I had waited until there was an actual
deadline, that could have been a nightmare.

> Lest this turn into a troll-fest I'm probably not going to say a lot
> more about the subject unless it's a reasonably worded post, such as
> yours was.

Thanks.
Re: OT Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182966 is a reply to message #182964] Sat, 28 September 2013 17:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fiver is currently offline  Fiver
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2013-09-28 20:33, Twayne wrote:
>>> Some even offer THREE I've come across in the past. DEPRECATED
>>> means removed from a VERSION of the language, not ALL versions!
>>
>> No, deprecated means that a feature or practice
>
> (IN A VERSION OF THE APP IN QUESTION)
[...]
> But, unlike many, they are trying to say that the latest versions
> with the deprecations is all that will suddenly be available! It's
> just not true.

Depreciation is not tied to any versions; the availability of a feature
and E_DEPRECATED warnings about its status are.

This seems to be the core of your misunderstanding. Depreciation of a
feature is unrelated to individual releases. When the PHP project
decides to deprecate mysql, it doesn't matter if you use an older or
newer version, if your version issues warnings or not, or even if you
use PHP at all - the status of the feature is always the same:
deprecated, will be removed in a future version.

What you do with this information is up to you. You've been warned by
people in this group (and by the PHP manual) not to use mysql_* for new
code. For some reason you decided to get all upset about it. As of
version 5.5, PHP itself is issuing E_DEPRECATED warnings about the mysql
extension. If your reaction is to turn the warnings off or rely on older
PHP versions, you're making a mistake. So your hoster is nice enough to
provide legacy PHP versions for you, fine, but even they will eventually
get tired of it.

Obligatory car analogy: when your "check engine" light is flashing,
would you just keep driving and put a sticker over it, or would you do
something about it?

> Change-over will come slowly (it's been a slow boat from China so far) .

Wonder why it's been so slow... could it be because some people can't be
bothered to upgrade their code for years and years?

regards,
5er
Re: OT Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182967 is a reply to message #182966] Sun, 29 September 2013 01:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 28/09/13 22:12, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-09-28 20:33, Twayne wrote:
>
>
>> Change-over will come slowly (it's been a slow boat from China so far) .
>
> Wonder why it's been so slow... could it be because some people can't be
> bothered to upgrade their code for years and years?
>
Ask any COBOL and RPG programmer whether there is still work around..


> regards,
> 5er
>


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
Re: OT Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182969 is a reply to message #182967] Sun, 29 September 2013 11:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter H. Coffin is currently offline  Peter H. Coffin
Messages: 245
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 06:50:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 28/09/13 22:12, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-09-28 20:33, Twayne wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Change-over will come slowly (it's been a slow boat from China so far) .
>>
>> Wonder why it's been so slow... could it be because some people can't be
>> bothered to upgrade their code for years and years?
>>
> Ask any COBOL and RPG programmer whether there is still work around..

Feh. The worst part is that there's a lot good to be said about modern
RPG, or even old RPG. The trick is getting to talk to something *other*
than databases

--
Usenet should require licenses; licenses that can be revoked.
-- Abigail
Re: OT Re: part 2 - file exists not working [message #182970 is a reply to message #182969] Sun, 29 September 2013 14:49 Go to previous message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 9/29/2013 11:39 AM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 06:50:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 28/09/13 22:12, Fiver wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-28 20:33, Twayne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Change-over will come slowly (it's been a slow boat from China so far) .
>>>
>>> Wonder why it's been so slow... could it be because some people can't be
>>> bothered to upgrade their code for years and years?
>>>
>> Ask any COBOL and RPG programmer whether there is still work around..
>
> Feh. The worst part is that there's a lot good to be said about modern
> RPG, or even old RPG. The trick is getting to talk to something *other*
> than databases
>

RPG was never meant to talk to other than databases. It's original
intent was to make it easy for non-programmers to generate reports from
databases (which were pretty much flat files back in the 60's).

Of course it's changed with technology, but AFAIK it's still designed
for non-programmers to easily generate reports.

I do admit it's been around 40 years since I've done any RPG
programming, and don't remember much of what I did back then.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Quick Reply
Formatting Tools:   
Pages (2): [ «    1  2]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic
Previous Topic: [urgent] need solution of Questions, in context of PHP5
Next Topic: Host recommendations (slightly OT)
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Tue Oct 24 03:55:38 EDT 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01171 seconds