root/docs/m-takagi/pdo2/trunk/pdo-faq.txt.ja @ 5503

Revision 5503, 18.2 kB (checked in by m-takagi, 6 years ago)

docs/m-takagi/pdo2: started Japanese translation of 'PDO v2 FAQ'.

  • Property svn:keywords set to Date Revision Author HeadURL Id
1# $Id$
2# Original Document:
3# Based on 'Last-Modified: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:47:16 GMT' version
5PDO v2 FAQ:===========
9(訳注: 日本語版は、上のコメント 3 行目に示したタイムスタンプに基づいてい
13なぜ PDO v2 が必要なの?
16PDO works quite well for a fair proportion of developers, but there are
17some features that are either missing or that need improvement. Some of
18the missing features are important for people building larger systems
19than the typical PHP developer, and would enable better integration with
20query building or data mapping libraries and frameworks. Others are
21improved support for the more advanced features of various database
22systems, such as XML and other datatypes.
24There needs to be some planning before running ahead and taking a stab
25at implementing these features, otherwise we'll create trouble for
26ourselves and introduce bugs, or not consider the impact of the features
27across the various database drivers.
29What are the suggested goals for PDO v2?
30- Setting up a forum for the development of PDO
31- Working out the details for a community driven development process
32- Building up a suite of unit tests, with the goal of reaching at least
3380% coverage with 100% pass rate before considering a component of PDO
34ready to release
35- Support Unicode for PHP 6, and improve charset support for PHP 5
36- Metadata APIs for describing schema and rowsets
37- Determine how to take advantage of XML column types emerging in some
38databases, and making the API consistent across those platforms
40These are just a starting point, and are of course open for discussion.
42PDO v2 は、PDO v1 を使っている既存のアプリケーションとの互換性があるの?
45The group's preference is for PDO v2 to be backwards compatible with v1.
46From initial review of PDO v1 it seems there are not a lot of areas
47which would require changing and there are likely to be more areas where
48PDO v2 would grow the functionality.
50That said, this is a rare opportunity to have all the industry experts
51around the same table and make the right long-term decisions. We believe
52the bias should be to keep backwards compatibility but with an openness
53to change if there is enough benefit.
55PDO v2 について、どんなことが決まっているの?
58No decisions have been made regarding PDO v2. The group has been mainly
59discussing on how to collaborate and making sure we have an up-to-date
60spec of PDO v1 so that we would have a good baseline.
62Some of the areas which the group did point out as interesting areas to
63address are:
64- A detailed written specification for PDO v2 both from a user
65perspective and from a driver implementer perspective.
66- Focus on database access as opposed to database abstraction.
67- Build consistent metadata APIs in order to support database
68abstraction layers and management tools.
69- Design testing methodology, test harness and set clear code coverage
72In any case, the intent is for the PDO v2 spec to be openly developed in
73version control and reviewed by the broad community.
75CLA を要求することにした経緯は?
78The working group has been working diligently in the past few months to
79try and find a process which would enable all interested parties to
80effectively collaborate around PDO v2. As part of this it became
81apparent that in order to most effectively enable some of the commercial
82vendors to participate and contribute, a process with a CLA requirement
83would be important. Therefore, the group spent a lot of time trying to
84find the right CLA & license suggestion which would both address the
85needs of the commercial companies and in parallel stay as aligned to the
86PHP community as possible. Such alignment included a process which would
87not require forming a legal entity for PHP, an Apache-like CLA which did
88not require copyright assignment and was based on a well known and well
89respected CLA, and a license which reflected the same values of the PHP
90license and delivering similar benefits to the PHP license.
92After many months the group has managed to reach a draft proposal for
93such a CLA and a license which will likely be acceptable to most and
94possibly all parties of the working group. This CLA is still in draft
95form and it is not final. Feedback on the draft is welcome.  As is
96mentioned elsewhere in this FAQ, having such a mechanism and process
97will allow the highest level of expertise to be available both to
98planning and developing the next generation of PDO.
103The intention is to involve both the interested data access
104organizations (commercial and non-commercial) and the PHP community in
105developing PDO v2.
107PHP's standard way of discussing plans, filtering ideas and delivering
108code will be used.
110The steps are:
1111. The PDO working group and PHP community leaders will define the goals
112of PDO v2 and decide on the use of a CLA process.
1132. Participants who want to contribute to PDO V2 will agree to a CLA and
114become part of the working group.
1153. A specification for PDO v2 will be written under the leadership of
116Wez Furlong.
1174. Tests to validate that PDO v2 drivers implement the specification
118will be written.
1195. Documentation for the PDO v2 API, and a guide for driver developers
120will be written.
1216. Drivers for each database will be written.
123It is expected that developers from the database organizations will lead
124their respective driver efforts, but assistance from other working group
125members in all areas (specification/coding/testing/documentation) is
128PDO v2 プロジェクトにかかわっている企業は?
131Currently vendors/projects who have been part of the initial discussions
132and have expressed interest in the group include IBM, Microsoft, MySQL,
133Oracle, PostgreSQL and SQLite. As the intention of PDO v2 is to deliver
134to PHP users first-class consistent data access to all databases, vendor
135involvement is crucial as they know their databases and drivers best. We
136would therefore be happy to see additional database vendors and data
137access providers join and contribute to the project.
139なぜ v1 のときのように自由に開発に参加することができないの?
142The goal is to have optimized and high-quality drivers for all supported
143database brands. PDO v1 was developed by a small number of developers
144who had general database experience, so some drivers are not complete
145and up to date.
147By encouraging contributions from data access providers, the PDO v2
148project gains the most expert knowledge of all database brands, and the
149latest optimizations and bug fixes. No one is better qualified to know
150details of each database brand than the vendors themselves.
152Driver development won't be done exclusively by the data access
153providers. PDO v2 will use an open development process, and community
154contributions are encouraged. Development of the PDO v2 core technology
155will be chiefly a community effort, just like it has been in the past.
157By combining the best contributions from both the community and from
158data access providers, we will produce better technology, with higher
159quality, in a more timely way.
161PDO v2 はなぜ CLA が必要なの?
164Having CLAs as part of the development and contribution process helps to
165raise the awareness of contributors about IP, and to clarify any IP
166associated with contributions to the project. The fact that contributors
167agree to the requirements of the CLA before contributing mitigates the
168risk of IP claims against users of the software.
170Concerns about the IP of contributions are not so infrequent that having
171CLAs could not be beneficial. IP problems aren't completely foreign to
172the PHP community. Over the years there have been cases where some code
173in PHP has been rewritten in order to remove less favorably licensed
174code from the code base. Also just recently there was an issue with one
175of the PEAR contributions (
177CLA に関する議論を陰でコソコソやっていたのはなぜ?
180We first wanted to explore what might be needed to get the commercial
181database vendors comfortable with participating in the PDO development
182effort before taking the time and effort to engage more widely and see
183if the community would also be comfortable with the approach.
185PDO に CLA を認めてしまうと、PHP にとって悪しき先例になってしまいませんか?
186PDO だけは特別なんですか?
189PDO is a bit different from the other parts of PHP because it acts as a
190bridge for a number of database extensions to talk to PHP. Most of those
191extensions use libraries provided by a commercial vendor, and most of
192those vendors are in competition with each other.
194The CLA and license make it possible for these potentially competing
195people to collaborate on the core piece of PDO, alongside community
196members, and this is very valuable for PDO because it means that we can
197take advantage of the experience, expertise and support commitment that
198are being offered by these organizations.
200There are fears that the introduction of a CLA to a particular corner of
201PHP will form a precedent that will gradually cause the whole of PHP to
202be similarly protected. We do not believe that this will be the case
203because, aside from it being almost impossible to retrofit a CLA to the
204entirety of PHP, the proposed CLA is very specifically targeted at PDO
205and at making it possible for database vendors to collaborate on just
206that piece. There are no viral clauses in the wording of the CLA.
208CLA を設けると、データベースのベンダは何をどのように保護されるのですか?
212CLAs are designed to make it clear that the person contributing material
213or information is making the contribution to be used, copied,
214distributed, etc. by those who receive it, and the contributor will not
215later claim any violation of their IP rights when the material and
216information is used, copied, distributed, etc. This provides some
217protection for everyone who accesses and receives the contributions,
218allowing them to continue developing code without worrying about IP
219claims from contributors who have signed CLAs. The database vendors
220would also sign Corporate CLAs which would protect all recipients and
221other contributors from claims by the vendors that IP contributed by
222their employees was not rightly contributed.
224Companies want to be as comfortable as possible that employees who
225access the source code or other materials will be able to continue
226developing the company's products and providing services without
227worrying about the rights to any of what might be replicated or produced
228in these products or services.
230CLA は、私がプロジェクトに貢献する際にも私を守ってくれますか?
233In addition to protecting contributors in the same ways that it protects
234end-users, the CLA also helps to reduce the risk of being tainted by IP
235that they have not been granted the rights to by protecting against
236claims from those making the contributions under the CLA.
238エンドユーザにとっての CLA の意味は?
241CLAs are designed to help manage IP risk to everyone involved (including
242end users) to the extent that those contributors who have signed CLAs
243should be prevented from claiming that end users (and others) who
244receive and make use of the contributions are violating the IP rights of
245the contributor.
251Many countries are signatories to treaties that provide certain common
252practices for intellectual property law. In general, we would not expect
253there to be great variation from country to country. However if you have
254concerns with respect to your country, you should consult a
255knowledgeable legal professional. There are large existing open-source
256communities like the Apache Software Foundation which are also global in
257nature and you may also want to consider contacting a contributor in
258your country who may be able to share their experiences.
260Apache 風の CLA を考えているようですが、これは
261たとえば MySQL の CLA みたいに著作権の譲渡も含むものなのですか?
264The Apache-like CLA is very much different from some of the commercial
265CLAs in that it does not require contributors to assign copyright to the
266project. Under the PDO CLA each contributor grants to the PHP Group,
267other contributors and end users a license to use his contribution. More
268details can be found in the "Grant of Copyright License" section of the
269CLA ( and
270 To be
271clear, the contributor retains copyright to his contribution even after
272the work has been contributed which is less restrictive than many CLAs
273used by other open-source projects.
275現在提案している CLA は Apache contributor license agreement
279The proposed CLA is based on the Apache CLA. It was clear at the outset
280of discussing a CLA that the parties believed that only an existing and
281broadly accepted CLA could act as a foundation for PDO. The group did
282not want to come up with a whole new CLA which is not recognizable and
283doesn't have a proven track record.
285There are a few places where it differs from the Apache CLA. Some main
286differences include:
287- It calls out the PHP Group as the administrator of the CLAs and
288licensor of  PDO. The main deviation is not only that this is a
289different group but also that the group itself has not formed an
290official legal entity like the Apache Software Foundation. However, due
291to the fact that the PHP Group has been around for many years and there
292is clear history to the group's involvement with PHP, the various
293parties have agreed that the current status is acceptable as the
294administrator of the CLAs. Note: This is a big accomplishment in itself
295as in the past companies have been very shy from contributing to
296projects which didn't have an official legal entity behind it.
297- There are additional restrictions on the sub-licensing the PHP Group
298can do on the software, mainly by limiting it to non-viral licenses
299(e.g. no GPL). As this is something which is consistent with existing
300PHP licensing philosophy which is aligned to BSD licensing it shouldn't
301pose a problem.
302- The goals of the project are more clearly defined and exclude the
303actual protocol level drivers to clarify that the parties are working
304together on the layer on top of the low-level driver and are not seeking
305to replicate the drivers themselves.
306- The representations are a bit more detailed but don't include any
307material changes.
309To summarize, the proposed CLA is almost the same as the Apache CLA both
310in its content and in its spirit and the changes have been made mainly
311to add clarification around the intent of the collaboration and the
312legal entity governing the CLA.
314企業用と個人用のふたつの CLA があるのはなぜですか?
318Many employers have legal agreements with their employees granting
319ownership of material produced by the employee that relates to the
320company's business to the company, and that often covers material
321produced on company time and outside company time. The Corporate CLA
322signed by a company representative goes beyond the Individual CLA in
323allowing named employees to contribute such company owned IP on the
324company's behalf.
330No. By signing the CLA, you assert that you and you alone authored your
331contributions, i.e., that your contributions are original to you as a
332matter of copyright law. You further assert that to the best of your
333knowledge you are not aware of any patent rights related to your
334contribution. And so we do not expect you to search for any patents
335before you submit a contribution.
337PDO のライセンスが PHP ライセンスと別になっている理由は?
341The existence of a PDO license does not set any new precedent because
342today PHP is already comprised of code under a variety of different
343licenses in addition to the PHP license. Several examples include TSRM
344(Thread Safe Resource Manager) and MT RAND which are licensed under
345BSD-like licenses, Mime Magic which has an Apache 1.1 license, and md5
346which has a RSA OS license. The PHP and PDO licenses are generally
347similar although the PDO license includes language that provides the
348same level of use rights and protections as the CLAs. We encourage you
349to compare the licenses and join the discussions on the PDO mailing
356メーリングリストを作りました。 です
357(空メールを に送れば参加できます)。
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the browser.