| Author |
|
asinsh
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 24
|
 Posted: Wed 18 Jan '06 3:27 Post subject: which libmysql to use? |
 |
|
I'm running steffen's build of apache 2.2 for windows (thanks, steffen!!), php 5.1.2 (with the latest php5apache2.dll build by steffen, thanks again steffen!), and mysql 5.0.18.
If I install with the libmysql.dll included with php 5.1.2 and I use php_info, it tellls me that the mysql client is 4.1.7. On the other hand, if I install with the libmysql included with mysql 5.0.18 (even though it is older than the one included with php 5.1.2) then php_info properly reports mysql 5.0.18 as the mysql client.
Any views on which I should be using, or doesn't it matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Steffen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 3092
Location: Hilversum, NL, EU
|
|
| Back to top |
|
asinsh
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Jan '06 23:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the response.
Looking at the libmysql.dll files in old versions of mysql, the newest general release of mysql ( 5.0.18 ) and the newest version of php ( 5.1.2 ), I see the following:
- the libmysql.dll file that comes packaged in the newest version of php ( 5.1.2 ) is quite an old file.
- the libmysql.dll file that comes packaged in the newest version of mysql ( 5.0.18 ) is the same as the one at the link you cited and is newer than the one that comes packaged in the newest version of php (which is very strange since the newest version of php came out more recently than the newest version of mysql).
So why do the people that package php insist on using an old version of libmysql? Odd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Steffen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 3092
Location: Hilversum, NL, EU
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Jan '06 23:31 Post subject: |
|
|
I heard that the Mysql License is the reason. MySQL is now distributing self the extension at the link above.
Indeed odd.
Steffen |
|
| Back to top |
|
pnllan
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Jan '06 9:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| A lot of it has to do with politics being played by the folks at PHP. I've heard the reasoning behind what the reason that they state, but it really doesn't make any sense. There was rumor back when PHP first started including SQL LITE, that some of the PHP developers had actually wrote much of the SQL LITE code. Which makes a certain amount of sense, but this is only rumor and conjecture. However, it's very coincidental that they started pushing SQL LITE at the same time they started pulling away from MySQL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
asinsh
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Jan '06 13:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, the real problem is not that php can't use the most current version of libmysql (if that's true). The real problem is that they continue to package php with the old version of that file, so a regular user has no way of knowing he's got the wrong file. When that happens, it's simply a matter of coincidence as to whether the mysql bin directory or the php directory come first in the path (if mysql comes first, then the good mysql version gets used while if php comes first, the out of date version gets used). If php simply left that file out, then the mysql version (the corect one) would get used by default and a user wouldn't have to do anything about the problem no matter how he had configured his path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pnllan
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Jan '06 8:22 Post subject: |
|
|
I was not trying to justify what the PHP folks do by any stretch of the imagination. Rather I was offering some of what I know about the subject. I think it's irresponsible personally. I have had numerous contacts with the PHP developers over the last few years, and had many unsatifactory answers from them over this very issue.
Don't get me wrong here now. I like PHP and think it's one of the best scripting languages out there. However, like you, I have had the exact same displeasure of dealing with the way they package their goods - with regards to MySQL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
asinsh
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Jan '06 13:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| pnllan wrote: | I was not trying to justify what the PHP folks do by any stretch of the imagination. Rather I was offering some of what I know about the subject. I think it's irresponsible personally. I have had numerous contacts with the PHP developers over the last few years, and had many unsatifactory answers from them over this very issue.
Don't get me wrong here now. I like PHP and think it's one of the best scripting languages out there. However, like you, I have had the exact same displeasure of dealing with the way they package their goods - with regards to MySQL. |
Agreed. And their packaging decision seems bizarre even from their own point of view. The point of packaging one thing with another is to make things easier for the user (who no longer needs to go hunt and find another thing necessary to make the whole work right). But in this case, the user still needs to install mysql, and mysql already has libmysql in it. So if php simply left out its incorrect older version everything would work right automatically without forcing the user to hunt for any additional file.
Since I can see no tactical reason why it is in php's interest to make things harder, and since I ascribe to Hanlon's Razor, I conclude that php is simply being negligent (they don't realize that mysql already has this file) or lazy (too much trouble to click the delte button and get rid of that file in the package) rather than malicious in this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pnllan
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Jan '06 22:21 Post subject: |
|
|
.
I offer that the most likely reason is based on indifference . Fortunately, they do offer multiple paths of connectivity to MySQL, albeit arbitrary in its' nature.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
