At 21:14 15/10/2002, Joseph Tate wrote: >Throw me a bone then. What is the suggested way to offer php developers >the opportunity to run code after the connection has been closed?
I think I mentioned this as well; IMHO, if we want to create the ability for users under Apache/UNIX to run stuff after the connection is closed, we should add a dedicated function for it, it shouldn't be overloaded to register_shutdown_function(). It can be apache_register_shutdown_function() or something like that, so that it would be clear it takes advantage of platform dependent functionality. > Even if it only works under Apache on Linux? Also if the 4.1.0 > behavior is the "correct" behavior, why is the function still documented > as the 4.0.x behavior? Because those who document the code and those who develop it are usually not the same people :) >I'll admit that the company I work for is probably the only one using this >function, but we depend on it. We do heavy image processing work, using >image magick, called from clients using wireless networks, where it hurts >us to keep connections open for long periods of time. If we can't fork >some processing to the background, our users think our app is slow, and we >lose sales. It's that simple. "Correct" behavior or not, we need the >functionality. > >My patch, I hope, will be ready by the end of the week. Adding a >parameter to the register_shutdown_function will not be possible, since >the function was changed a while back to allow users to specify arguments >to the function being registered. Instead a second function will be >created: register_offline_function offering the 4.0.x behavior. I have no objection to adding the Apache specific equivalent to 4.3. As a matter of fact, if it solves a problem - I'm quite for it. I hope this bone is meaty enough :) Zeev -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
