Hi,

i ported v 3.0.9-dev from branch NON_BLOCKING_IO to NON_BLOCKING_IO_php7,
the original php5 version is buggy, mainly udp protocol doesn't work for
me, as it is expected.
after porting on php7 there is less failing tests, but udp is wrong there
too, and test tests/039.phpt end's up in a loop for a long time.

Windows not tested, i tried it, but tests are failing for php5 version as
on php7 too. For ex. there are no checks for windows, so it's checking unix
socket, ...

digitalkaoz also tried it:
https://github.com/websupport-sk/pecl-memcache/issues/2

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Anatol Belski <anatol....@belski.net>
wrote:

> Hi Szabolcs,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Szabolcs Balogh [mailto:balog...@szabi.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 4:52 PM
> > To: Anatol Belski <anatol....@belski.net>
> > Cc: Anthony Dovgal <tony2...@php.net>; Pierre Joye
> > <pierre....@gmail.com>; pecl-dev@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PECL-DEV] Introduction: Szabi, extension: memcache
> >
> > Hi Anatol
> >
> > i found one "little" problem
> >
> > i used memcache from
> > https://git.php.net/repository/pecl/caching/memcache.git, master
> branch, but
> > it seems to be an after-2.2.7 branch, and the development, and new
> releases are
> > in NON_BLOCKING_IO branch till 3.0.6.
> > And last release 3.0.8 is a tag with something like initial commit (all
> code in
> > without link to prev. commit, so not in tree).
> >
> > I think I need to a part of work again, get the 3.0.8 code and somehow
> connect
> > it to NON_BLOCKING_IO branch, and continue from this point, my only
> question
> > is, that can you look at this git tree, and confirm, that i am right
> with this
> > process.
> >
> Yeah, NON_BLOCKING_IO holds the current development. My bad as well not
> catching it :( . But please note also that PHP5 compatible code should be
> kept - so either a new branch or another way (like integrating 7
> compatibility with conditionals or picking different sources in
> config.(m4|w32) depending on the version).
>
> Thanks
>
> Anatol
>
>

Reply via email to