On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 00:24:41 -0400
Daniel Brown <danbr...@php.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 00:16, Paul M Foster <pa...@quillandmouse.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > However, assuming it *wasn't*, I've found the following example
> > from a google search (thank goodness for google's "hinting" or I
> > couldn't have found it):
> >
> > $fp = fsockopen("www.site.com", 80);
> > fputs($fp, "POST /script.php HTTP/1.0
> > Host: www.site.com
> > Content-Length: 7
> >
> > q=proxy");
> >
> > I don't know much about doing things this way. It appears that when
> > done this way, the "body" must be separated by a newline, just like
> > email. And it appears that the content-length of 7 indicates the
> > length of the "q=proxy" string. Assuming I piled on a few other
> > passed variables the same way as "q", separated by newlines (and
> > adjusted the Content-Length accordingly), would the above work? Are
> > there liabilities to doing it this way?
>     Yes.  Hosts are more likely to have cURL installed and available
> than fsockopen() or URL-based fopen() calls, so portability is greater
> with cURL.  It's also a bit faster.  Still, as you know, there's
> always more than one way to skin a cute, furry, delicious little
> kitten.

I stand corrected on that point--in that way, yes, it would be a
liability. Happily it's been so long since I've had to use that kind of
host that I don't usually consider that a problem. But yes, if you're
using free or low-end hosting then you might have to contend with that.
Ugly, but true.


PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to