php-general Digest 23 Dec 2008 10:07:14 -0000 Issue 5861
Topics (messages 284980 through 285001):
More microptimisation (Was Re: [PHP] Variable as an index)
284980 by: Clancy
284990 by: Nathan Nobbe
284992 by: German Geek
284993 by: Lars Torben Wilson
284995 by: Lars Torben Wilson
284996 by: Nathan Nobbe
284999 by: German Geek
285000 by: Clancy
Re: eof bof in php
284981 by: Kyle Terry
EPP server - TLS conection
284982 by: Evandro Sestrem
unsubscring from the list
284983 by: Sudhakar
284984 by: Chris
284985 by: Michael S. Dunsavage
284986 by: Ashley Sheridan
Re: Regular expressions (regex) question for parsing
284987 by: Al
284997 by: Lars Torben Wilson
shell_exec seems to hang other web requests while running convert
284988 by: German Geek
284989 by: Nathan Nobbe
284991 by: German Geek
284994 by: Nathan Nobbe
284998 by: German Geek
Re: Create PHP form from MySQL table structure
285001 by: Ronnie MacGregor
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[email protected]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:20:09 +1100, [email protected] (Chris) wrote:
............
>I'd call this a micro-optimization. If changing this causes that much of
>a difference in your script, wow - you're way ahead of the rest of us.
Schlossnagle (in "Advanced PHP Programming") advises:
$i = 0; while ($i < $j)
{
........
++$i;
}
rather than:
$i = 0; while ($i < $j)
{
.......
$i++;
}
as the former apparently uses less memory references. However I find it very
hard to
believe that the difference would ever show up in the real world.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Clancy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:20:09 +1100, [email protected] (Chris) wrote:
> ............
> >I'd call this a micro-optimization. If changing this causes that much of
> >a difference in your script, wow - you're way ahead of the rest of us.
>
> Schlossnagle (in "Advanced PHP Programming") advises:
>
> $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
> {
> ........
> ++$i;
> }
>
> rather than:
>
> $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
> {
> .......
> $i++;
> }
>
> as the former apparently uses less memory references. However I find it
> very hard to
> believe that the difference would ever show up in the real world.
nonsense, some college kid is going to put ++$i on a test to try an impress
the professor when the semantics call for $i++ :D
-nathan
p.s.
in case you couldnt tell; been there, done that. lol
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
agree, ++$i wont save u nething, it just means that the variable is
incremented after it is used:
$i = 0;
while ($i < 4) echo $i++;
will output
0123
while
$i = 0;
while ($i < 4) echo ++$i;
will output
1234
Tim-Hinnerk Heuer
http://www.ihostnz.com
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Clancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:20:09 +1100, [email protected] (Chris) wrote:
> > ............
> > >I'd call this a micro-optimization. If changing this causes that much of
> > >a difference in your script, wow - you're way ahead of the rest of us.
> >
> > Schlossnagle (in "Advanced PHP Programming") advises:
> >
> > $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
> > {
> > ........
> > ++$i;
> > }
> >
> > rather than:
> >
> > $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
> > {
> > .......
> > $i++;
> > }
> >
> > as the former apparently uses less memory references. However I find it
> > very hard to
> > believe that the difference would ever show up in the real world.
>
>
> nonsense, some college kid is going to put ++$i on a test to try an impress
> the professor when the semantics call for $i++ :D
>
> -nathan
> p.s.
> in case you couldnt tell; been there, done that. lol
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2008/12/22 Nathan Nobbe <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Clancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:20:09 +1100, [email protected] (Chris) wrote:
>> ............
>> >I'd call this a micro-optimization. If changing this causes that much of
>> >a difference in your script, wow - you're way ahead of the rest of us.
>>
>> Schlossnagle (in "Advanced PHP Programming") advises:
>>
>> $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
>> {
>> ........
>> ++$i;
>> }
>>
>> rather than:
>>
>> $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
>> {
>> .......
>> $i++;
>> }
>>
>> as the former apparently uses less memory references. However I find it
>> very hard to
>> believe that the difference would ever show up in the real world.
>
>
> nonsense, some college kid is going to put ++$i on a test to try an impress
> the professor when the semantics call for $i++ :D
>
> -nathan
> p.s.
> in case you couldnt tell; been there, done that. lol
Well, in all fairness, it *is* faster--but you'll only notice the
difference in extremely tight and long-running loops (try it ;) ). As
long as you know why you're using it and what the side effects are, it
would be fine. But as an optimization tool, I'd agree that it's pretty
much pointless.
It's good to remember the Rules of Optimization:
#1) Don't.
#2) (For experts only) Don't do it yet.
Torben
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2008/12/22 German Geek <[email protected]>:
> agree, ++$i wont save u nething, it just means that the variable is
> incremented after it is used:
You meant ". . .before it is used:", right?
Torben
> $i = 0;
> while ($i < 4) echo $i++;
>
> will output
> 0123
>
> while
>
> $i = 0;
> while ($i < 4) echo ++$i;
>
> will output
> 1234
>
> Tim-Hinnerk Heuer
>
> http://www.ihostnz.com
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Clancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:20:09 +1100, [email protected] (Chris) wrote:
>> > ............
>> > >I'd call this a micro-optimization. If changing this causes that much of
>> > >a difference in your script, wow - you're way ahead of the rest of us.
>> >
>> > Schlossnagle (in "Advanced PHP Programming") advises:
>> >
>> > $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
>> > {
>> > ........
>> > ++$i;
>> > }
>> >
>> > rather than:
>> >
>> > $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
>> > {
>> > .......
>> > $i++;
>> > }
>> >
>> > as the former apparently uses less memory references. However I find it
>> > very hard to
>> > believe that the difference would ever show up in the real world.
>>
>>
>> nonsense, some college kid is going to put ++$i on a test to try an impress
>> the professor when the semantics call for $i++ :D
>>
>> -nathan
>> p.s.
>> in case you couldnt tell; been there, done that. lol
>>
>
--
Torben Wilson <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Lars Torben Wilson
<[email protected]>wrote:
> 2008/12/22 German Geek <[email protected]>:
> > agree, ++$i wont save u nething, it just means that the variable is
> > incremented after it is used:
>
> You meant ". . .before it is used:", right?
i hope so, coming from an individual who likes to optimize, like i did on my
tests during college :D
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.increment.php
-nathan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
oops, yes of course lol
Tim-Hinnerk Heuer
http://www.ihostnz.com
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Lars Torben Wilson <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2008/12/22 German Geek <[email protected]>:
> > agree, ++$i wont save u nething, it just means that the variable is
> > incremented after it is used:
>
> You meant ". . .before it is used:", right?
>
>
> Torben
>
> > $i = 0;
> > while ($i < 4) echo $i++;
> >
> > will output
> > 0123
> >
> > while
> >
> > $i = 0;
> > while ($i < 4) echo ++$i;
> >
> > will output
> > 1234
> >
> > Tim-Hinnerk Heuer
> >
> > http://www.ihostnz.com
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Clancy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:20:09 +1100, [email protected] (Chris) wrote:
> >> > ............
> >> > >I'd call this a micro-optimization. If changing this causes that much
> of
> >> > >a difference in your script, wow - you're way ahead of the rest of
> us.
> >> >
> >> > Schlossnagle (in "Advanced PHP Programming") advises:
> >> >
> >> > $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
> >> > {
> >> > ........
> >> > ++$i;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > rather than:
> >> >
> >> > $i = 0; while ($i < $j)
> >> > {
> >> > .......
> >> > $i++;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > as the former apparently uses less memory references. However I find
> it
> >> > very hard to
> >> > believe that the difference would ever show up in the real world.
> >>
> >>
> >> nonsense, some college kid is going to put ++$i on a test to try an
> impress
> >> the professor when the semantics call for $i++ :D
> >>
> >> -nathan
> >> p.s.
> >> in case you couldnt tell; been there, done that. lol
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Torben Wilson <[email protected]>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:40:58 -0800, [email protected] ("Lars Torben Wilson")
wrote:
>Well, in all fairness, it *is* faster--but you'll only notice the
>difference in extremely tight and long-running loops (try it ;) ). As
>long as you know why you're using it and what the side effects are, it
>would be fine. But as an optimization tool, I'd agree that it's pretty
>much pointless.
>
>It's good to remember the Rules of Optimization:
>
>#1) Don't.
>#2) (For experts only) Don't do it yet.
I like that!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Dec 22, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 15:04 -0500, Anthony Gentile wrote:
Well you said it...for my example it makes sense. For when it gets
really
messy by all means concatenate with php. However, my argument is
not so much
keeping html seperate from php as it is keeping the business logic
separate
from the presentation....so if you have php writing html and its
all dealing
with the presentation...I personally don't think its a problem.
However when
you start writing html out with php in your business logic...to me
that's a
no no.
Anthony Gentile
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<[email protected]>wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 14:21 -0500, Anthony Gentile wrote:
I would argue it is better practice as:
<h1><?php echo 'Hello World'; ?></h1>
than
<?php
echo "<h1>Hello World</h1>";
?>
Anthony Gentile
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:18 AM, tedd <[email protected]>
wrote:
At 1:21 PM -0500 12/21/08, Anthony Gentile wrote:
-snip exampe-
is probably going to give you the result you want. However you
should
know
it is bad practice to mix PHP and HTML as horridly as I just
showed
you.
AKA
you don't want your PHP writing your HTML.
Anthony Gentile
Anthony:
Granted, the example you gave was a bit mixed, but it's
perfectly Okay
to
have php write html. In fact, if you think about it that's the
only way
php
can express itself to the user. A simple echo($var) is writing
html to
a
browser.
Good practice should to write code (i.e., php, mysql, css, html,
js)
that
is semantic and compliant with standards. Mixing them well is
almost an
art
form that observes best practices in all.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Why?! As you've seen, it can get awfully messy very quickly...
Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
I largely tend towards using heredoc syntax wherever possible, as it
lets you separate the PHP and HTML in the way you want, yet still
allows
you to have variable output inside the HTML. I hate repetitious
breaking
out of HTML code just to output a variable or two.
Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I love heredocs!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
I'm trying to connect in a EPP server (TLS), but I'm getting the message:
Warning: stream_socket_client() [function.stream-socket-client]: SSL
operation failed with code 1. OpenSSL Error messages: error:14094410:SSL
routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:sslv3 alert handshake failure in testepp.php on
line 9
My test code is:
<?php
ini_set("display_errors",1);
$fc = stream_context_create(array(
'tls'=>array(
'allow_self_signed'=>'TRUE',
'local_cert'=>'client.pem'
)
));
$fp = stream_socket_client("tls://beta.registro.br:700
",$errno,$errstr,30,STREAM_CLIENT_CONNECT,$fc);
if (!$fp) {
echo "$errstr ($errno)<br />\n";
} else {
echo "connected";
}
?>
Thanks for any help,
[]s
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
hi
i would like to unsubscribe from this php list as i keep getting too many
emails. how do i unsubscribe.
also later on if i would like to ask a question about php if i unsubscribe
will i be able to send a message and only receive replies to my question.
please advice.
thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sudhakar wrote:
hi
i would like to unsubscribe from this php list as i keep getting too many
emails. how do i unsubscribe.
http://php.net/unsub.php
--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 10:33 +1100, Chris wrote:
> Sudhakar wrote:
> > hi
> >
> > i would like to unsubscribe from this php list as i keep getting too many
> > emails. how do i unsubscribe.
>
> http://php.net/unsub.php
>
Maybe change your subscription to digest form?
--
Michael S. Dunsavage
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 04:51 +0530, Sudhakar wrote:
> hi
>
> i would like to unsubscribe from this php list as i keep getting too many
> emails. how do i unsubscribe.
>
> also later on if i would like to ask a question about php if i unsubscribe
> will i be able to send a message and only receive replies to my question.
>
> please advice.
>
> thanks.
Look at the email headers from the mailing list emails.
Nuff said.
Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rene Fournier wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for some ideas on the best way to parse blocks of text
that is formatted such as:
$sometext %\r\n -- good data
$otherstring %\r\n -- good data
$andyetmoretext %\r\n -- good data
$finaltext -- bad data (missing ending)
Each line should start with a $dollar sign, then some arbitrary text,
ends with a percent sign, followed by carriage-return and line-feed.
Sometimes though, the final line is not complete. In that case, I want
to save those lines too.
....so that I end up with an array like:
$result = array ( "matches" =>
array ( 0 => "$sometext %\r\n",
1 => "$otherstring %\r\n",
2 => "$andyetmoretext %\r\n"
),
"non_matches" =>
array ( 3 => "$finaltext"
)
);
The key thing here is that the line numbers are preserved and the
non-matched lines are saved...
Any ideas, what's the best way to go about this? Preg_matc, preg_split
or something incorporating explode?
....Rene
Where does the text come from, a text file? client-side textarea? DB? etc.?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2008/12/22 Jim Lucas <[email protected]>:
> Rene Fournier wrote:
>> Hi, I'm looking for some ideas on the best way to parse blocks of text
>> that is formatted such as:
>>
>> $sometext %\r\n -- good data
>> $otherstring %\r\n -- good data
>> $andyetmoretext %\r\n -- good data
>> $finaltext -- bad data (missing ending)
>>
>> Each line should start with a $dollar sign, then some arbitrary text,
>> ends with a percent sign, followed by carriage-return and line-feed.
>> Sometimes though, the final line is not complete. In that case, I want
>> to save those lines too.
>>
>> ....so that I end up with an array like:
>>
>> $result = array ( "matches" =>
>> array ( 0 => "$sometext %\r\n",
>> 1 => "$otherstring %\r\n",
>> 2 => "$andyetmoretext %\r\n"
>> ),
>> "non_matches" =>
>> array ( 3 => "$finaltext"
>> )
>> );
>>
>> The key thing here is that the line numbers are preserved and the
>> non-matched lines are saved...
>>
>> Any ideas, what's the best way to go about this? Preg_matc, preg_split
>> or something incorporating explode?
>>
>> ....Rene
>>
>
> Something along the line of this?
>
> <pre><?php
>
> $block_of_text = '$sometext %\r\n
> $otherstring %\r\n
> $andyetmoretext %\r\n
> $finaltext';
>
> $lines = explode("\n", $block_of_text);
>
> $results = array();
>
> foreach ( $lines AS $i => $line ) {
> if ( preg_match('|^\$.* %\\\r\\\n$|', $line ) ) {
> $results['matches'][$i] = $line;
> } else {
> $results['non_matches'][$i] = $line;
> }
> }
>
> print_r($results);
>
> ?>
I know I'm arguing against premature optimization in another thread at
the moment, but using regexps for this is overkill from the get-go:
if ($line[0] === '$' && substr($line, -3) === "%\r\n") {
This is both faster and easier to read. Regexps are great for more
complex stuff but something this simple doesn't demand their power (or
overhead).
Torben
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi All,
The following problem:
Our client is converting pdfs to images with a web interface. At the moment
I'm using convert from imagemagick with shell_exec (i know i could use the
imagick module, but this would require quite a bit of recoding and time at
the moment, it was originally running on a windows machine and i couldnt get
the imagick module working on that).
Is there a quick way to give other web requests to the web server a higher
priority than this process? It can take quite a while to convert 100 pdf
pages to images in high res with convert. At the moment only 3 images at a
time are converted with some crazy ajax logic. But still while these 3
images are converted (can take 20-30 seconds) other requests seem to hang
until convert is finished. I know, i can put a & at the end of the command
line but then they wouldnt know when the process is actually finished.
The server is an ubuntu server with the latest release. It's got Apache:
Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) mod_mono/2.0 PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.3 with Suhosin-Patch
mod_ssl/2.2.8 OpenSSL/0.9.8g Server at 208.79.206.58 Port 80
Please help. This is rather urgent and needs to be working properly
preferably before xmas. Anyway, merry xmas to everyone in case i forget to
say that later :-).
Tim-Hinnerk Heuer
http://www.ihostnz.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, German Geek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The following problem:
>
> Our client is converting pdfs to images with a web interface. At the moment
> I'm using convert from imagemagick with shell_exec (i know i could use the
> imagick module, but this would require quite a bit of recoding and time at
> the moment, it was originally running on a windows machine and i couldnt
> get
> the imagick module working on that).
wow, i totally here you on the we cant change our imagemagick setup right
now ;)
But still while these 3
> images are converted (can take 20-30 seconds) other requests seem to hang
> until convert is finished. I know, i can put a & at the end of the command
> line but then they wouldnt know when the process is actually finished.
its very common to treat objectives which take more time to complete in an
asynchronous manner. typically the http request will place a 'command' into
a queue, which is picked up by a cron job. then the user is notified upon
completion by an email or some other web page, which they can go to review
at a later time.
this will not help your server load at all however, if youve only got 1
box. the cron will be running and eating juice that the webserver would
like to have. best bet is to scale out by tossing another server in the mix
to handle the imagemagick stuff. whether or not you want to keep things
real-time or move to a cron-based solution is up to you.
-nathan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
cron is a good idea, havent thought about that. One could use the nice
program then to give it the lowest priority, because other requests are more
important than this and another server gives the issue of transfering files
back and forth. Another soln would be to run it with & in the background
(with nice) and then check if the file(s) exist on ajax calls to give
feedback, this might actually be easier to implement.
Anyway, we will fix the issue later now. Thanks.
Tim-Hinnerk Heuer
http://www.ihostnz.com
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, German Geek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The following problem:
>>
>> Our client is converting pdfs to images with a web interface. At the
>> moment
>> I'm using convert from imagemagick with shell_exec (i know i could use the
>> imagick module, but this would require quite a bit of recoding and time at
>> the moment, it was originally running on a windows machine and i couldnt
>> get
>> the imagick module working on that).
>
>
> wow, i totally here you on the we cant change our imagemagick setup right
> now ;)
>
> But still while these 3
>> images are converted (can take 20-30 seconds) other requests seem to hang
>> until convert is finished. I know, i can put a & at the end of the command
>> line but then they wouldnt know when the process is actually finished.
>
>
> its very common to treat objectives which take more time to complete in an
> asynchronous manner. typically the http request will place a 'command' into
> a queue, which is picked up by a cron job. then the user is notified upon
> completion by an email or some other web page, which they can go to review
> at a later time.
>
> this will not help your server load at all however, if youve only got 1
> box. the cron will be running and eating juice that the webserver would
> like to have. best bet is to scale out by tossing another server in the mix
> to handle the imagemagick stuff. whether or not you want to keep things
> real-time or move to a cron-based solution is up to you.
>
> -nathan
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:34 PM, German Geek <[email protected]> wrote:
> cron is a good idea, havent thought about that. One could use the nice
> program then to give it the lowest priority, because other requests are more
> important than this and another server gives the issue of transfering files
> back and forth. Another soln would be to run it with & in the background
> (with nice) and then check if the file(s) exist on ajax calls to give
> feedback, this might actually be easier to implement.
nice'ing the process is a good idea, however, youll only prolong the time it
will take to accomplish those img manipulation tasks, and soon you'll find
yourself w/ a nice little backlog on your hands.
what sounds to me to be the larger issue is pushing the limit on a single
box. in order to scale, youll need to spread the load somehow. you can
dodge the bullet now, but it will be back, if your sites popularity is
growing.
just my 2c
-nathan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
We can live with the fact that it will take a little longer to process the
images. The image processing is only done by 2 people, about once a month,
just to save them time (they would do it with photoshop otherwise and it is
really boring and time consuming). In fact, i might set up an automatic
email when its finished. :-)
In the future it might become an issue when people can edit their own
ebooks. This project dates back to 1999, so a lot of it is legacy (a binary
page definition data format...). We're thinking of moving to swf pages
instead of images, as they currently are, that will reduce the time to be
taken to convert a pdf by thousands and would increase the quality and
reduce download times for end users, but it will take time to develop which
is not at hand atm.
We have been thinking about scaling issues as well for quite some time
now...
It was hard enough to get them to move to Linux, since i work in a .NET
shop...
Setting up load balancing is not a trivial task though and expensive to
host. I'm the main software developer on this project and am too busy adding
features and debugging ActionScript, C++ and PHP code to do that as well.
Thanks for your thoughts though.
Regards,
Tim
Tim-Hinnerk Heuer
http://www.ihostnz.com
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:34 PM, German Geek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> cron is a good idea, havent thought about that. One could use the nice
>> program then to give it the lowest priority, because other requests are more
>> important than this and another server gives the issue of transfering files
>> back and forth. Another soln would be to run it with & in the background
>> (with nice) and then check if the file(s) exist on ajax calls to give
>> feedback, this might actually be easier to implement.
>
>
> nice'ing the process is a good idea, however, youll only prolong the time
> it will take to accomplish those img manipulation tasks, and soon you'll
> find yourself w/ a nice little backlog on your hands.
>
> what sounds to me to be the larger issue is pushing the limit on a single
> box. in order to scale, youll need to spread the load somehow. you can
> dodge the bullet now, but it will be back, if your sites popularity is
> growing.
>
> just my 2c
>
> -nathan
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:13:36 -0500
Al said :
>
>
> R B MacGregor wrote:
> > Hi folks
> >
> > Anybody got any recommendations for a utility which would create a quick
> > head
> > start by creating the php/html code for a basic form using the field
> > structure
> > of a MySQL table ?
> >
> > Thanks for any suggestions.
> >
>
> Look at Pear HTML_QuickForm and other HTML classes.
Thanks, ... I did, but for now I'm going with myPHPedit.
--
Ronnie MacGregor
Scotland
Ronnie at
dBASEdeveloper
dot co dot uk
www.dBASEdeveloper.co.uk
--- End Message ---
