There's an endless loop because __doRequest() calls _doRequest() via the given
callback and _doRequest() calls __doRequest() again.

Zend\Soap\Client\Common::__doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client::_doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client\Common::__doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client::_doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client\Common::__doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client::_doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client\Common::__doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client::_doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client\Common::__doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client::_doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client\Common::__doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client::_doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client\Common::__doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client::_doRequest()
Zend\Soap\Client\Common::__doRequest()

The code within Zend\Soap\Client::_doRequest() looks a bit different to the old
Zend_Soap_Client::_doRequest() in 1.11.0 (trunk).

I have no working php environment to check this error so this is all i can do at
the moment. There is already a bug report: ZF-10338.

with regards,
Jan Pieper


On 11/03/2010 04:16 PM, Jonathan Maron wrote:
> Hello all
> 
> I am experiencing a segmentation fault ("Maximum function nesting
> level of '100' reached, aborting!"), when I try to run the latest
> version of the demos illustrating \Zend\Service\LiveDocx.
> 
> I just now cloned the latest ZF2 repository from
> https://github.com/jonathanmaron/zf2 .
> 
> The same behavior in exhibited in PHP 5.3.2 and PHP 5.3.3
> 
> See https://gist.github.com/661179 for debug trace.
> 
> These demos worked perfectly, before I merged the latest ZF2 repos.
> The demos and the family of classes at \Zend\Service\LiveDocx have not
> changed.
> 
> It would appear that there is an issue with the current
> \Zend\Soap\Client\Common.
> 
> The line mentioned in the dump (see above link) is:
> 
> return call_user_func($this->_doRequestCallback, $this, $request,
> $location, $action, $version, $one_way);
> 
> in the method:
> 
> function __doRequest($request, $location, $action, $version, $one_way = null)
> 
> at
> 
> library/Zend/Soap/Client/Common.php:74
> 
> Could someone help me to debug and fix this?
> 
> Thank you. :-)
> 
> Jonathan
> 

Reply via email to