Hi Ralph,
Well php --version shows
PHP 5.2.10 (cli) (built: Nov 13 2009 11:24:03)
Copyright (c) 1997-2009 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v2.2.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2009 Zend Technologies
with the ionCube PHP Loader v3.3.17, Copyright (c) 2002-2010, by ionCube
Ltd.
rpm -qi php
Name : php Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 5.2.10 Vendor: CentOS
Release : 1.el5.centos Build Date: Fri 13 Nov 2009
12:36:29 PM AMT
Install Date: Fri 25 Jun 2010 10:34:40 AM AMT Build Host:
builder10.centos.org
Group : Development/Languages Source RPM:
php-5.2.10-1.el5.centos.src.rpm
Size : 3268487 License: PHP
Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 22 Jan 2010 11:22:24 AM AMT, Key ID
5c37c0b17203f491
I'll try to get the backtrace.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Ralph Schindler
<[email protected]>wrote:
> No, it sounds like you are actually using PHP 5.2.3.
>
> Are you sure it's PHP 5.2.10 (clean)?
>
> Can you provide a backtrace of th exception? This is one of the main
> reasons why the minimum version of PHP is 5.2.4. There was an issue in
> 5.2.3 with how handled nested arrays when using magic methods & $_SESSION.
>
> -ralph
>
> robert mena wrote:
>
>> I am facing the same problem. Zend 1.10.7 and PHP 5.2.10 (centos with
>> backported patches).
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Ralph Schindler
>> <[email protected]<mailto:
>> [email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> What version of Zend Framework and what version of PHP are you running?
>>
>> -ralph
>>
>>
>> Jakobud wrote:
>>
>> I'm new to Zend, so I'm not sure if I'm doing anything wrong...
>> Here is my
>> test code:
>>
>>
>> <?
>> require_once("Zend/Loader.php");
>>
>> Zend_Loader::loadClass('Zend_Session');
>> Zend_Loader::loadClass('Zend_Session_Namespace');
>> Zend_Session::start();
>>
>> $user = new Zend_Session_Namespace('user');
>> $user->id = 123;
>> ?>
>>
>>
>> and my error:
>>
>>
>> Fatal error: Cannot use object of type Zend_Session_Namespace as
>> array in
>> /.../ZendFramework/library/Zend/Session/Abstract.php on line 159
>>
>>
>> I found an old forum post from 2007 that mentions this error. Is
>> this
>> seriously still an outstanding bug after all this time? Or am I
>> just doing
>> something wrong?
>>
>>
>>
