Hi! I'm with you @Wez -- allowances for assigning common socket options
would be a major win. I'll see what I can do about working on something
more robust than this one-off function PR.
On Friday, September 6, 2013, Wez Furlong wrote:
> I'm not opposed to the idea; the reason that I didn't imple
I'm not opposed to the idea; the reason that I didn't implement it
initially is that I wanted something functional in the core (ext/sockets
was often not available) and we didn't have "PHP Spirit" equivalents of the
various and murky socket option setting APIs that are present in
ext/sockets (it's
Hi Internals,
Our RC1 of PHP 5.5.4 has been released for testing. It fixes some bugs in
the 5.5 branch. You'll find details in the NEWS file.
The packages can be found at:
http://downloads.php.net/dsp
and windows packages at
http://windows.php.net/qa
Please test the release carefully and
Seems reasonable to me, but Wez should probably weigh in on it. I vaguely
recall a conversation with him when he first implemented stream_socket_*()
and a reason why listen wasn't in the API.
-Sara
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Daniel Lowrey wrote:
> The stream socket functions are incredi
The stream socket functions are incredibly useful and obviate the need for
the sockets extension for the vast majority of potential use-cases.
However, it's currently it's not possible bind a socket and listen for
connections in separate steps using stream_socket_server().
This _can_ be done with
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Julien Pauli < julienpa...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > there is no description to be found about what the value of
> > > realpat
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Krebs
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > That being said, there is always a point in a RFC discussion where
>> >> > there is nothing left to discuss or ar
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Julien Pauli < julienpa...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > there is no description to be found about what the value of
> > realpath_cache_size actually is.
> >
> > Is it
> > a) max number of files/di
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Krebs
> wrote:
>
> >> > That being said, there is always a point in a RFC discussion where
> >> > there is nothing left to discuss or argue about, we are so far with
> >> > this one.
> >>
> >>
> >> W
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> there is no description to be found about what the value of
> realpath_cache_size actually is.
>
> Is it
> a) max number of files/dirs in the cache or
> b) overall cache size?
>
> I checked php.ini samples distributed with PHP 5.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
>> > That being said, there is always a point in a RFC discussion where
>> > there is nothing left to discuss or argue about, we are so far with
>> > this one.
>>
>>
>> We've been at this point for a while; no new arguments have been raised
2013/9/3 Levi Morrison
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Levi Morrison
> > wrote:
> > >> In which case we have very different ideas about what good design
> > >> is and would never come to any agreement on that.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Daniel Lowrey wrote:
> On further consideration this is probably better addressed by setting the
> relevant socket streams to non-blocking so that a client connection can be
> created in the same process space and tested utilizing select() and an
> event loop. This
13 matches
Mail list logo
