Require PHP 5.5 as minimum version #5602
Comments
|
There was a ticket a while back about not hard-requiring ext-intl (and On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:11 PM, José Lorenzo Rodríguez <
|
|
+1 for raising it to PHP5.5 with 3.1 or 3.2 (not 3.0!). It's time CakePHP is not left behind ever again but instead plays a key role again in cutting edge PHP framework technology. |
|
+1 for PHP 5.5. Although some of our servers are still on PHP 5.4, we need to push things forward, otherwise we're stuck with 5.4 until CakePHP 4. ^^ perhaps a roadmap should be created, stating up front that CakePHP 3.x will no longer support a specific version of PHP, based on the PHP end of support dates; http://php.net/supported-versions.php |
|
Going to PHP5.5 as a recommended minimum makes sense to me. Currently the code is still compatible with 5.4, which is something I think is worth keeping as that is what we have very broadly communicated. It will feel like a bit of bait and switch if we suddenly start requiring php5.5 now. |
|
@markstory I meant for one of the next point releases, 3.0.x should definitely still support 5.4 |
|
Fwiw, I'm fine with 5.4 for 3.0.x, as long as the option stays open to change the requirements for 3.x ( and we're not stuck until Cake 4) 😄 |
|
If anyone is curious about the PHP's shared-hosting/PaaS support landscape, this is a new thing to check out: http://phpversions.info/ |
|
Interesting list. It really is a chicken and egg situation; providers don't upgrade in fear of breaking client's websites, clients don't upgrade their code because the provider doesn't yet support it. Seriously though, providers offering 5.2/5.3 as a default? As a custom option, ok, fair, but as default. That's ridiculous. Feels like Internet Explorer 6 all over again. |
|
+1 for PHP 5.5 as minimum requirement for the next version update, ex 3.1. Due the proximity of the 3.0 stable release. @bcrowe pointed something important. I feel a little bit worried about shared hosting companies implementation speed and how it can harm less advanced PHP / CakePHP developers reducing its range of tools. |
|
@andtxr there's still Cake 2.x for the time being. IMO if a provider only offers an insecure, un-maintained hosting package, it's time to switch provider. |
|
@andtxr The CakePHP min. requirements so far, as probably well in the future, mainly rather aline with the EOL times of each PHP version (kind of the "absolute minimum") and not the newest ones. (Shared) hosting companies that cannot comply with that should not be in business IMO - not only for security reasons (EOL also means no security patches anymore for those PHP versions). |
|
While we could bump the minimum required PHP version to 5.5.x, I don't think we could start to use new PHP5.5 features without bumping to 4.x, as it wouldn't be a backwards compatible upgrade. With that said I don't think there is any need for a future 4.x release to be remotely as large as 3.0 is. |
|
I like the idea of having 5.5 as our base, but I would say to do that in a
|
|
I'm on board the 4.x train as well. Version numbers are cheap. We can certainly be a bit more breezy with major versions going into the future. Bump major versions for long-needed API breaks and minimum PHP requirements, rather than having a major version implore a framework overhaul. |
|
We can always skip releases like PHP or Windows when we want to overhaul big features in the future. |
|
@markstory |
Well played. 👏
|
Fine, PHP 7 for next release? :P |
|
Next release will CakePHP 360? Or CakePHP Vista 😄 |
|
@thaJeztah No, next version will be CakePHP Black Forest, or Lemon Cheese CakePHP I'm 👍 for the next release being 5.5+ (Whether that is 3.1, or 4.0 doesn't matter too much to me) |
|
+1 on recomending PHP 5.5/5.6 now (for best practice and performance) and requiring 5.4 as minimum for CakePHP 3.0.x |
|
I like @dereuromark's idea that CakePHP's minimun requirement should align with PHP's EOL dates.
How about we "deprecate" the support every time over at least two minor releases (still aligned to PHP's EOL dates by + 6 months)? This could loiok like this, for example:
In any way, we should People using CakePHP should be able to understand the supported PHP version roadmap and should be able to plan accordingly. One thing we don't want is them loosing trust into CakePHP because they can't plan with it. As a framework we should go forward and be an example when it comes to good practices. And supporting an EOLed PHP version for the sake of "not leaving anybody behind" is not a good reason enough. http://blog.ircmaxell.com/2014/12/on-php-version-requirements.html Yes not supprting an EOLed PHP version in a minior CakePHP release could mean some people can't upgrade to the next minor 3.x release. But it does not have to mean we have to include any API breaking changes. So we still stay true to the SemVer rule
And last but not least, yes version numbers are cheap but that does not mean we should play along in this ridiculous numbers game. And I would not trust a framework that does so. Also, a web application framework is no end user client application. |
|
@ravage84 +100. I think your post exactly echoes my thoughts! One "nit"; why not recommend PHP 5.5/5.6 already with 3.0? Recommending something shouldn't be a problem right? |
|
I am +1 on moving to 5.5 in a minor release. FWIW you can up php version 2015-01-08 13:02 GMT+01:00 Sebastiaan van Stijn notifications@github.com:
|
|
I think 5.5 for 3.1 is pretty sane. |
|
I did somw more thinking and reading (including zendframework/zendframework#7095). Going to 5.5 for 3.1 or 3.2 is reasonable given we don't break any existing public APIs. |
|
I agree with @markstory, if we've moving it up to 5.5 we should already start communicating this now in form of a comment in the roadmap or something and already put it in the 3.0 release notes or something. |
|
Required: 5.4.x |
|
@burzum I have added a wiki page for 3.1 and will update the issue milestone as well. |
|
Why not just bump-up to 4.x with PHP 5.5? |
|
@rchavik my concern is if there are features in 5.5 or 5.6 that the core developers, especially ORM wants to use, I want to see them being used and not being delayed because of platform concerns. At the same time I loved how cakes major versions were historically supported for very long. If you just bump the version to 4.x BECAUSE of 5.5 this long term major version scheme will be broken. And then I don't see an increase in a required PHP version as an issue at all. |
|
Given that PHP 7 alpha 1 is already out we should be at least thinking of 5.6 not 5.5. |
|
I agree, most "useful" OS like debian8 are also already shipped with PHP5.6 by default as of now. No one can complain he cannot run it unless he has a crappy provider. |
|
Unfortunately most CakePHP (PHP in general) developers are using crappy providers and are not willing to switch, even if there are better providers for more or less the same cost. |
|
Not surprisingly even on centos 7 you need to use external repos to get php 5.6. That said we won't bump the version till at least 3.2 which i think is at least 6 months away. So those who don't have php 5.6 can just use cake 3.1 :) |
|
@dakota I'm always for not going on bleeding edge versions because especially the big business moves slowly and prefers stability over fancy new versions. So do I as well. But on the other side I don't see a reason to stick to 5.4 or 5.5 just because of some crappy developers or companies. It's not like 5.6 is a brand new version that was just released yesterday. The framework should keep an eye on being recognized as a professional tool for big enterprise class projects and not as a toy for some crappy devs. Actually I'm pretty amused how the usual suspects struggle with 3.0 because it applies more "advanced" concepts. 😛 Announce now that Cake will go for 5.6 in roughly X month and people will have time to cry and update. @ADmad what's wrong with using external repos or compile it yourself? That's normal and expected when using Linux, at least for me (and a reason why I don't like it). So I would expect people to know how to do it. On windows I just downloaded php7 alpha extracted it and configured it's php.ini - was a 5 minute job. |
Nothing, expect many web hosting providers might not. You are missing the point here. The issue is crappy webhosts not a server you control yourself. In which case one should just debian instead of centos :) |
|
We could provide a list of cheap providers that offer 5.6 for example. I'm paying incredible expensive $4/month for my VPS (https://www.vpscheap.net). A good but cheap host (https://ssl.planet-hosting.de) offers you webspace and php 5.6 for insane 1.49€/month. Seriously, I have to be rich to afford them! If people want something cheaper screw them if it doesn't support 5.6. We could provide a list of providers that support 5.6. Or maybe we can make a deal with a provider and just recommend that one? Don't get stuck just because people want to stick with their crappy host, there are in fact cheap providers that support 5.6. If they're to lazy to make the move to a provider that supports it it's not our fault. Other frameworks current versions require these php versions by the way: |
Classy :) |
Not true: |
|
@lorenzo Thanks, don't know from where I picked 5.1 up then... I've updated my previous post and linked the composer file. |
I know that many big company IT departments won't use external package repos and will only pull in from suse's central repos for example. I know our friends at the dutch government had this exact issue. |
|
Those who can't strong arm their IT departments to upgrade can always keep using older cake version 😄 Until now we have done a decent job providing fixes for any significant issues for older versions. |
|
As someone who works in the web hosting industry, my opinion is that this is really only a problem in shared hosting environments, which are dying out in favor of virtualization, containers, and cloud solutions. There are even turn-key chroot-type solutions like cagefs/php-selector to run multiple php versions on a shared server these days, so the incompatibility issue is not as big as it used to be. I also think web frameworks like Wordpress to a very large extent, and to a lesser extent frameworks like CakePHP and Laravel are actually pretty big drivers in moving the community toward new versions of php (which is a good thing). Just my two cents if it's worth that. |
|
I am using shared managed hosting for my small clients and 5.5/5.6 is no issue. The bigger clients run debian or red hat no prob and can basically decide what to use So 👍 If there is need to make stuff easier for newbies there are other ways like virtual appliances, better cake bake styles, crud, web installers, prefixes working for bake and orm, cakeschool, etcetc. |
|
Guys, sorry to piggy back on this thread, but could somebody tell me if the latest Cake 2.x (say 2.7) is fully compatible with PHP7? I saw somewhere that all 3.x tests were passing with PHP7, but couldn't find a similar statement for 2.x. Thanks. |
|
@sebastienbarre When I last tested it, which was around 6 weeks ago, 2.7 still had failing tests on php7. Compile one of the latest php7 release candidates and run the cake core test suite with it. Should give you a more up to date answer. Regards |
|
Thanks. I ultimately found the Continuous Integration page. Seems only 3.x is tested again PHP7. From the branches page I see 2.x is tested against PHP 5.3 to 5.6 (see, for example, this build). Would you guys (@markstory?) consider adding PHP7, which might be released soon (Nov 12)? |
|
@sebastienbarre You could just add PHP7 yourself in your branch and see what happens when you let CI run. |
|
@tanuck @dereuromark ok, will slowly get through it, see #7671 ; thanks. |
|
Closing as this was decided as implemented already |
|
Going to 5.5 is good but I had a situation where my client asked me to create cakephp 3.0 datasource for sql anywhere 16 . Sqlanywhere does not have support for php 5.5, everything for the project just got stuck |
|
@shridhar-patil a really quick search on Google shows that the sources for 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 are available. Download them and compile the php module. |
|
But that is an Sqlanywhere (or any tool for that matter) issue, not a framework one. It is (IMO) inacceptable for such a tool - if still under development - not to provide current PHP support. |
|
@shridhar-patil just pickup 3.0 or 3.1 branch then. Getting proper hosting is not a problem, usually. |
|
I just want to connect sqlanywhere 16 from php 5.5 and once I am connected I will write the cakephp 3.x sybase datasource for my client , hosting is not a problem for me . I have also put mail to sybase regarding this , have not had any feedback yet from last 3 months |
and others
PHP 5.4 will receive no more support after June this year as version 5.5 was released almost 2 years ago. I'm not sure how the landscape of hosting providers will look like in 6 months, but I think we should start making a decision for the next milestone or two.
As an important decision factor, Symfony 3, which is due in October of this year, will also be requiring 5.5 as a minimum.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: