[Xerte-dev] Re: PHP compatibility

[Pat @ Pgogy]

It's fine to consider it a separate block of work, much like a bug fix
(which it is effectively)

At the moment when I use XOT there are a few itches I kind of want to
change, but I don't feel it is "fair" to submit them as I could see others
would never need them, but I don't know this for definite?

An example, no one seems that fussed about writing new modules, so I don't
know if "the app store" ever made it into the main code, but as a sort of
self-employed developer person having an app store really appeals, but
perhaps the itch approach doesn't offer a certainty in terms of investing
time in it?




On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Julian Tenney <
Julian.Tenney at nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:

> So we need to weigh up the pros and cons… smaller pieces of work are much
> easier to progress than larger ones. Re-writing everything to use an API
> and completely re-writing all the code is a big job, too big a job I think,
> unless someone is going to sit down at it for a couple of months and that’s
> not realistic unless we can pay them. The problem we started discussing was
> how to handle the PHP 5.5 thing. Scratch you own itch suggests those
> wanting to use 5.5 should shoulder the costs / efforts. If a simple fix is
> a few days’ work, then Ron might want to talk to his contact about the
> possibility of finding £1000 for someone here to take on the coding? We can
> return to the ongoing discussions about APIs / abstraction / design
> patterns later: I sense those discussions could be paralysis, though of
> course I see the potential.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [mailto:
> xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] *On Behalf Of *David Goodwin
> *Sent:* 16 October 2013 12:10
>
> *To:* For Xerte technical developers
> *Subject:* [Xerte-dev] Re: PHP compatibility****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 16 Oct 2013, at 11:53, Pat @ Pgogy <xerte at pgogywebstuff.com> wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> How long would it take to change the code over to abstraction - honestly -
> I'd say 2-3 days (I internationalised over a weekend)****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, and then :****
>
> ** **
>
> a. There was refactoring and bug fixing by others for days/weeks afterwards
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> b. If there had been a discussion beforehand, perhaps a different (and
> perhaps better) solution might have been chosen.****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm all for someone 'fixing' the mysql_ stuff - but there needs to be a
> short discussion beforehand. There are 101 different possible approaches -
> some are more equal than others etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> There's a big difference between replacing instances of 'mysql_query' and
> associated stuff with db_query* versus making some sort of library/api.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> The effort/changes required for a library/api would probably
> replace/rewrite/overwrite whatever may have been done changing things to
> use e.g. db_query*.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> David.****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> But it just feels a bit odd to just do the database stuff****
>
> ** **
>
> I will do it for 9,999 pounds****
>
> ** **
>
> Pale Purple Ltd.  (Company No: 5580814)****
>
> 'Web and Mobile Application Development for Business'****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.palepurple.co.uk   ****
>
> Office: 0845 0046746     Mobile: 07792380669 ****
>
> ** **
>
> Follow us on Twitter: @PalePurpleLtd****
>
> ** **
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and
> may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in
> error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do
> not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in
> any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this
> email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/xerte-dev/attachments/20131016/26ad11b2/attachment.html>