[PHP] Re: Php installation
It flance wrote: Hi all, I'm using Fedora 8. I installed php, mysql and apache. Now i can run a script connecting to a database from terminal but not from browser. Any suggestion? Have you configured apache to process php scripts? See item 14 at http://php.net/manual/en/install.unix.apache2.php Cheers -- David Robley I can't hear you. There's a banana republic in my ear. Today is Boomtime, the 23rd day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Regex for email validation
tedd wrote: However, it's one thing to have a keyboard designed for a specific language and another to be able to enter code-points that aren't associated with any specific language (i.e., Dingbats and Math Symbols). Ah yes, that's true. How about an APL2 keyboard then? :-) For example, note that Rx,com is not associated with any language, which is the same as many of my other domains, as you can see some here: http://symboldomains.com/symbol-domains-for-sale.html Of course, some of those are closely associated with the greek language/alphabet, but I take your point. I think the problem is mostly on the domain owner side though - if you register a domain for publishing something or other, but most of your intended audience cannot enter it in an easy, straight-forward way, you've only shot yourself in the foot, haven't you? /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Regex for email validation
tedd wrote: But as it is now, it's not so much IF the domain name is easy to type in or not, but rather does the Rx.com show up in the URL once you get there? And it does for most browsers other than IE. You can get to the site very easily, try typing: http://rx-2.com That wasn't hard, now was it? What should have happened here, Tedd? I just got the message you have the wrong Browser - I'm using Firefox, I thought that was perfectly capable of using IDNs. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol? (was: Regex for email validation)
Yeti wrote: That Rx.com domain name is really great stuff, but how do you expect the average user to type it in? Completely separate question - I finally managed to get to Tedds site, where I read this: The ℞symbol is a truly global icon for Pharmaceuticals. What Pharmaceutical company would not want to own ℞.com -- if they are seriously considering Global sales? While languages change throughout the globe, the ℞ icon remains a constant and highly recognizable symbol for Pharmaceuticals. Now, I haven't worked in pharmaceuticals, but I've worked in most European countries. So it's probably just me, but I've _never_ come across the Rx symbol before. I don't think it's as global as you think. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Regex for email validation
Per Jessen wrote: tedd wrote: But as it is now, it's not so much IF the domain name is easy to type in or not, but rather does the Rx.com show up in the URL once you get there? And it does for most browsers other than IE. You can get to the site very easily, try typing: http://rx-2.com That wasn't hard, now was it? What should have happened here, Tedd? I just got the message you have the wrong Browser - I'm using Firefox, I thought that was perfectly capable of using IDNs. Interesting - I copy-pasted the Rx symbol (from your webpage) into FF and appended .com - and FF converted the URL symbol to xn--u2g.com. I guess FF only works with a limited subset of the many possible special characters. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 12:05 AM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote: On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:07, tedd wrote: I hesitated before writing this because I don't want to get into another debate with you, but accessibility means that all people (disabled or not) can access the data they want in a similar fashion. Why hesitate? If I'm putting you off debating with me then I'm doing it wrong so please enlighten me to my faults so I can correct them. Oh, there's nothing that you're doing wrong -- you're a great debater and you're usually right. I'm just getting tired of having my ass handed to me each time I disagree with you -- that's meant in a good way. You know your stuff and have excellent communication skills -- that's a hard combination to debate against. :-) But in fairness to both, we're not that far apart on the things we debate -- except you usually win. That's the real reason why I hesitate, understand? :-) 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
[PHP] Javascript mailing list
Hi, Can anyone recommend a good Javascript related mailing list? Thanks. -- Richard Heyes HTML5 Graphing: http://www.phpguru.org/RGraph -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
On 30 Aug 2008, at 13:00, tedd wrote: At 12:05 AM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote: On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:07, tedd wrote: I hesitated before writing this because I don't want to get into another debate with you, but accessibility means that all people (disabled or not) can access the data they want in a similar fashion. Why hesitate? If I'm putting you off debating with me then I'm doing it wrong so please enlighten me to my faults so I can correct them. Oh, there's nothing that you're doing wrong -- you're a great debater and you're usually right. I'm just getting tired of having my ass handed to me each time I disagree with you -- that's meant in a good way. You know your stuff and have excellent communication skills -- that's a hard combination to debate against. :-) But in fairness to both, we're not that far apart on the things we debate -- except you usually win. That's the real reason why I hesitate, understand? :-) Wait, am I blushing? :) Seriously though, don't ever hesitate. It's healthy and fun to disagree, the value is in the debate - it's how our knowledge continues to evolve regardless of who wins. All opinions are valid and valuable, and over the years I've learned that most of mine are wrong, it just happens that my success rate in the field of software engineering is higher than on other topics. And rest assured I've learned just as much from you as I hope you have from me in the past few years. Now, about that recommendation for my linked in profile... ;) -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 11:51 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote: Eric Gorr schreef: There is no documentation anywhere which claims, as you do, that it is impossible to design a captcha which deals with accessibility issues. on behalf of the list, please accept our Crayon of the Week award. Oh, and please realize we have the sharpest Crayon and dullest Crayon of the Week awards, which do you think you've won with your ASCII Captcha and performance thus far on this list? That's a rhetorical question -- I don't care what your answer may be. As I said privately -- As for me, your ASCII art Captcha does nothing to advance the use/ease of Captcha's -- the problem remains except you have made it even more difficult for people to read without making it harder for automated systems to break. No offense meant, but this were a class I was teaching and you were a student, I would give you a C for originality, a D for solving the problem at hand, and an F for not doing the required reading. -- and that gang was what he took offence to off-list AND I apologized to him for saying it. But as you can see, he continues. The problem here Eric is that you've waded into a list that has a lot of very smart people on it who give freely of their time and effort to help others. Instead of appreciating that fact and taking advantage of what we have to offer, you take offense at an honest evaluation and then start throwing your weight around as if your ASCII art Captcha has given you some measure of credibility. Well, it hasn't. So, continue to rattle on you may, but welcome to my kill file. 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
Re: [PHP] Is this a bug?
Jochem Maas wrote: T Lensselink schreef: Catalin Zamfir Alexandru, DATAGRAM SRL wrote: Hello guys, I've been stalking on the list for some time. Didn't have anything to report/talk, until now. I have a code like this, maybe you guys can reproduce it, with output buffering started: Echo 'something'; Echo 'another thing'; Echo 'something br /'\; What happens is that ANYTHING that was echo'ed until that \, will not reach the buffer. Although, this should actually be a Parse Error, it isn't, it just echoes what was echoed after the god damned \. It took me two hours to find this typo in the code . ouch. don't forget you can do: $ php - l yourscript.php to test for syntax errors (the warning does show up with this). additionally a good syntax highlighting editor can help you to spot stuff like this ... anything to stop the eyes from bleeding :/ Can you guys reproduce the error? I can actually give you a link to the server where this code runs. The script doesn't cause a parse error Instead it throws a warning. 'PHP Warning: Unexpected character in input: '\' (ASCII=92) state=1 in' Don't think it's a bug. And the reason there's no syntax error is because the \ is a PHP escape character. is this character ever valid as an escape character outside of a string? if it is that's news to me and if it isn't then really it is a bug ... it should be a straight up parse error ... chances are that it's down to limitations in the lexer? the output buffer handler that seems to be swallowing the warning every second request now that is weird. I don't think it should be valid outside a string. But PHP seems to see this different. The only reason i could think of. Is that the \ somehow is a registered symbol. So it throws a non fatal E_COMPILE_ERROR. Could be a bug. That's for the guys on internals to decide. I'd also expect a parse error. With output buffering enabled i still get the same warning on every request. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
On 30 Aug 2008, at 05:32, Robert Cummings wrote: On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:25 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: On Aug 30, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Robert Cummings wrote: On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:05 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: Oh, here's an interesting story: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/breaking-google-captchas-for-3-a-day/ This was written by a journalist, not a technology expert. Even the person to which he was talking needed to clarify the meaning of crack. From the article: If by cracked, you are saying that a machine can solve the captcha as easily as a human being, I’m confident that is not the case, Interestingly the word crack only appears in the article in two places. In the above quote and in the following excerpt: Another piece of evidence that sheds light on the mystery was uncovered by Websense, one of the security firms that suggested that spammers are having at least some success using bots to crack Google’s captchas. I really don't see how this story supports your arguments in the least and as such I will not be answering anymore of your drivel. You appear to have nothing of usefulness to add to the conversation. I didn't think it would take very long for you to begin the fear the intervention of the moderators. I sure the rest of the list will appreciate your silence as well. But since I doubt you are telling the truth and have the habit of quoting everything I write back to the list: Please, would all of the other readers of this mailing list write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask them to shut Robert Cummings down? Thank you. I'm sorry list *lol* But this one made me laugh so hard I had to share this last one with you. I'm gonna be grinning for days *giggle*. Thanks Rob, this was my first chuckle of the day. Eric... 1) Quoting an NYT blog as an authority on technical matters is both naive and asking for it. The mainstream press have never used industry- specific terminology correctly, and they probably never will. Hacker vs. cracker is the best example of this. 2) CAPTCHA's have one single purpose... to prevent automated form posting. Any system that uses humans to get past them is not breaking the CAPTCHA, or cracking it or any other terminology you decide to use. 3) This list is self-moderating so your pleas to the PHP webmaster, list moderator and $DEITY (you'd have gotten to her in the end) are pointless beyond their comedic value. 4) Rob is one of the most valuable members of this mailing list ... don't take him on, you'll lose!! Have a great weekend folks! -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Function __call
hi all,
I'm sending this email only to ask if someone know if the works of
__call in private methods is bug or feature.
ex.
class user {
public function __call ( $name, $arguments ) {
do something
return call_user_func( array( $this, $name ), $arguments );
}
private function xpto ( $arguments ) {
do something
}
}
new $user = new user();
$user-xpto();
error:
Fatal error: Call to private method user::xpto() from context '' in
xpto.php on line 11
PS:
what a fucking I was thinking?
well, it don't have this public method, then it sholdn't know it
exists, then go to __call()
i really don't know if it make any sense to someone else, but it still
make sense to me
any thoughts?
Thanks by your attention,
Diogo Neves
Developer @ Sapo.pt by PrimeIT.pt
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Javascript mailing list
Richard Heyes wrote: Can anyone recommend a good Javascript related mailing list? http://lists.evolt.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript perhaps. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Recommendation
Hi gang: At 1:16 PM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote: Now, about that recommendation for my linked in profile... ;) That's not a bad idea. Daniel and I did an exchange a while back. I think it might help to land clients if we can use our linked-in status in some way. I haven't done that yet, but there should be a way. As such, if any of the regulars to this list are in need of a recommendation, please contact me off-list. 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
[PHP] 301 redirect
Is it possible to do permanent redirect (301) with php ? If possible... which is more efficient, by using .htaccess or php redirect ? Thanks, Feris
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 11:39 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote: tedd schreef: Do you not agree? yes and no. in the wild a lion with hip atrophy will be forced to crawl away and die ... no more eating gazelles for him I hope I don't get finger atrophy. --- my point being we have a long long long way to go before we can say much positive about accessibility for everyone. Not that you said otherwise, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can when we can. And, we CAN do more currently. Of course, all change take time and money to implement. But once the need and solutions are exposed, the general tendency of people is to help. The more known, the more help. These discussions are part of that process -- we all walk away better informed and better equipped to deal with the problems. --- I think both tedd and Stut make good points, I guess we'll all be hacking away at such issues for a long time to come. That's the nature of the beast (no not Stut!), but rather the evolution of our species in all venues. We've been hacking away on things for a long time -- did I ever tell you about how we used to program with rocks? :-) --- in the mean time, here's wishing more clean water and internet access for everyone (and less bombs). Amend to that. It's one thing to have the greatest military force that's ever existed, but it's another to use that for every solution. Like the engineer with only a hammer, not everything is a nail -- we need to look deeper into our toolbox to solve problems. Don't get me started about political issues. :-) 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
Re: [PHP] 301 redirect
On 30 Aug 2008, at 13:42, Feris wrote:
Is it possible to do permanent redirect (301) with php ? If
possible...
which is more efficient, by using .htaccess or php redirect ?
If using PHP 4.3 or above...
header('Location: http://website.com/some/page.html', true, 301);
See http://php.net/header for more details.
Anything that happens before PHP gets invoked will be more efficient
since it doesn't involve invoking PHP, but for most setups the
difference will be negligible.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 11:51 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote: so orthogonal to the turing test ... I'd wager that research in turing test passing technology is moving faster that captcha tech. so in the long run captcha is plain dead in the water. I agree with that. Creating a better captcha is a losing proposition. The problem has to solved differently. 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
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 12:14 AM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote: I have no shame ... I'm dutch. That's obvious. :-) Rhetorical What we (i.e., USA Government) needs to do is to get you people (yeah I said you people) down to New Orleans to teach us how to make a dike. Seriously, your countrymen are the world's leading experts on hydrology -- I don't understand why we're not seeking your expertise as to how to keep the ocean out. /Rhetorical 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
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
Oh look, you forgot to include the list again. On 30 Aug 2008, at 13:54, Eric Gorr wrote: On Aug 30, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Stut wrote: Eric... 1) Quoting an NYT blog as an authority on technical matters is both naive and asking for it. The mainstream press have never used industry-specific terminology correctly, and they probably never will. Hacker vs. cracker is the best example of this. It is entirely legitimate to use words like crack or cracked in either a narrow or broad sense. That you would assert they can or should only be used in their narrowest sense is, well, ignorant. I used the article, not as an authority on technical matters, but only to show that there are people out there will to pay others to crack captcha's. That you do not recognize this only demonstrates a severe lack of intelligence on your part. Wow, straight in there with the personal insults. Please take a moment to consider the possibility that you're wrong. If they're paying others to develop software to get past CAPTCHA's then I'd agree with you. Using humans to get past a CAPTCHA test is not breaking it, it's solving it in the way it was meant to be solved. The fact that it's being done for evil purposes doesn't enter into it. 2) CAPTCHA's have one single purpose... to prevent automated form posting. Any system that uses humans to get past them is not breaking the CAPTCHA, or cracking it or any other terminology you decide to use. Captcha's have one single purpose... to make it that much more difficult for an evil doer to spam a site or use it to spam. Any system that uses humans to get past them is breaking the Captcha despite your need to limit the use of english words and phrases to only their narrowest sense. You see what you did there? You completely ignored my definition of what a CAPTCHA is and went back to your definition. Where's the wiggle room? I'll say it one more time... when a human gets past a CAPTCHA test they have solved it. When a machine does it they've broken it. One word, big difference. 3) This list is self-moderating so your pleas to the PHP webmaster, list moderator and $DEITY (you'd have gotten to her in the end) are pointless beyond their comedic value. Then, hopefully the other list members will take it upon themselves to request these pointless public posts come to an end. I doubt he would listen, but there is always hope. Hold on to the hope Eric, and don't forget your daily prayer to the fairies at the bottom of your garden. 4) Rob is one of the most valuable members of this mailing list ... don't take him on, you'll lose!! That only makes it even more interesting to watch him spam a mailing list and attempt to provoke a public flame war on a mailing list that he would now falsely claim to care about. Rob is the last person I would expect to intentionally provoke a flame war, in public or in private. If someone disagrees with you it's not necessarily because they're trying to pick a fight, it's almost certainly because they think differently. Nothing more, nothing less. This discussion is no longer adding value publicly or privately so don't expect another response from me. If you feel you need to use this opportunity to have the last word feel free. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 11:56 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote: On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:39, Jochem Maas wrote: in the mean time, here's wishing more clean water and internet access for everyone (and less bombs). Hear hear, except that I'd put food above internet access. -Stut Yep, right up there with health care (not advocating government doing it). Once a society has food/water/shelter and health care, their productivity increases exponentially and technology leads. 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
Re: [PHP] Recommendation
On 30 Aug 2008, at 13:38, tedd wrote: At 1:16 PM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote: Now, about that recommendation for my linked in profile... ;) That's not a bad idea. Daniel and I did an exchange a while back. I think it might help to land clients if we can use our linked-in status in some way. I haven't done that yet, but there should be a way. People should feel free to connect with me: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stuartdallas -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
Robert Cummings schreef: ... using bots to crack Google’s captchas. I really don't see how this story supports your arguments in the least and as such I will not be answering anymore of your drivel. You appear to have nothing of usefulness to add to the conversation. I didn't think it would take very long for you to begin the fear the intervention of the moderators. I sure the rest of the list will appreciate your silence as well. But since I doubt you are telling the truth and have the habit of quoting everything I write back to the list: Please, would all of the other readers of this mailing list write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask them to shut Robert Cummings down? Thank you. 1. you can't shut Cummings up, period. 2. you can't shut him down either, he does'nt have an off button. 3. there is no moderator. 4. we welcome Rob's input. (well sometimes I hate it we he's right ... again!) 5. see point 3. I'm sorry list *lol* But this one made me laugh so hard I had to share this last one with you. I'm gonna be grinning for days *giggle*. share the joy :-) Cheers, Rob. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Function __call
Diogo Neves schreef:
hi all,
I'm sending this email only to ask if someone know if the works of
__call in private methods is bug or feature.
ex.
class user {
public function __call ( $name, $arguments ) {
do something
return call_user_func( array( $this, $name ), $arguments );
the fatal error occurs because the method exists, but it's
private ... __call() is only called if the method does not exist
at all:
class user {
public function __call($m, $a) {
if (is_callable(array($this, _.$m)))
return $this-{_.$m}( $a );
}
private function _xpto($a)
{
var_dump($a);
}
}
$u = new user;
$u-xpto(1, 2, 3);
}
private function xpto ( $arguments ) {
do something
}
}
new $user = new user();
the first 'new' is incorrect me thinks.
$user-xpto();
error:
Fatal error: Call to private method user::xpto() from context '' in
xpto.php on line 11
PS:
what a fucking I was thinking?
well, it don't have this public method, then it sholdn't know it
exists, then go to __call()
i really don't know if it make any sense to someone else, but it still
make sense to me
any thoughts?
Thanks by your attention,
Diogo Neves
Developer @ Sapo.pt by PrimeIT.pt
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: With regard to: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
Jim Lucas schreef: Robert Cummings wrote: On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:01 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: No, I will not help you troll. But, I certainly cannot prevent you from doing so. Hopefully the list moderators will shut you down. This is PHP General. We discuss PHP and related issues. CAPTCHA is certainly an area of interest to many PHP developers. Cheers, Rob. Rob +1 Eric -1 counting cards will get you in trouble ... sorry just watched 21. :-) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Function __call
thanks,
well, the 'new' woks the same with ou without '()' after class, I think...
and I now how it works, i only don't understand why... if the method
is not available outside of class it should go to __call function like
if it doesn't exist...
it doesn't make any sense to anyone else?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diogo Neves schreef:
hi all,
I'm sending this email only to ask if someone know if the works of
__call in private methods is bug or feature.
ex.
class user {
public function __call ( $name, $arguments ) {
do something
return call_user_func( array( $this, $name ), $arguments );
the fatal error occurs because the method exists, but it's
private ... __call() is only called if the method does not exist
at all:
class user {
public function __call($m, $a) {
if (is_callable(array($this, _.$m)))
return $this-{_.$m}( $a );
}
private function _xpto($a)
{
var_dump($a);
}
}
$u = new user;
$u-xpto(1, 2, 3);
}
private function xpto ( $arguments ) {
do something
}
}
new $user = new user();
the first 'new' is incorrect me thinks.
$user-xpto();
error:
Fatal error: Call to private method user::xpto() from context '' in
xpto.php on line 11
PS:
what a fucking I was thinking?
well, it don't have this public method, then it sholdn't know it
exists, then go to __call()
i really don't know if it make any sense to someone else, but it still
make sense to me
any thoughts?
Thanks by your attention,
Diogo Neves
Developer @ Sapo.pt by PrimeIT.pt
Thanks by your attention,
Diogo Neves
Developer @ Sapo.pt by PrimeIT.pt
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
On 30 Aug 2008, at 14:05, tedd wrote: At 11:39 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote: I think both tedd and Stut make good points, I guess we'll all be hacking away at such issues for a long time to come. That's the nature of the beast (no not Stut!) I am Stut - hear me Roar!! CAPTCHA's are not a magic bullet, and I'm definitely of the opinion no such bullet exists. Each problem is different and we need to think about them differently. We all know there has to be a better way, and I think we all agree that if possible we wouldn't be using them at all. However, while we must recognise that each site we create will present different opportunities for validating UGC without needing to fall back to CAPTCHA's we must also recognise that CAPTCHA's work to a certain extent and should not be avoided simply because they're not perfect. I can't remember who said it and I apologise for that, but someone mentioned that the person who comes up with a better replacement for CAPTCHA's will make billions. Unfortunately this is not true. Any idea that has the potential to change the way the world works or plays will not reach that potential if it comes with prohibitive licenses or royalty fees attached. If it works make it free or adoption will be severely restricted which makes it essentially worthless. That's all I've got to say about that. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 12:05 AM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote: On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:07, tedd wrote: Do you not agree? Sort of. I think most disabled people accept that they are different and that special provisions sometimes need to be made. In this case I would hope people would understand that the current technology we have for verifying that users of a website are people do not allow us to cover every possible case and that we do try to make things as accessible as possible. I am sure many disabled do understand, partly because they have no choice. When confronted with barriers that cannot be moved, then you look at the problem a little differently (a personal observation). The problem I see with the net is that much of the technology that can make their life better is either being ignored or passed off as sorry about that. For example, all the clients who I have worked give lip-service to disability issues but at every point when they have to make a decision re accessibility or what they want -- they get what they want. It can be something very simple thing like color contrast, but if the client doesn't want a shade darker to comply, then accessibility loses. I don't meant to sound negative, but it sure feels like an uphill battle. It's almost comical when I see web sites who claim care and compassion for the disabled, but then refuse to make accessibility changes when they are pointed out to them -- this includes local, state and the federal government. To me accessibility means that everyone is able to use something to achieve a goal regardless of their physical or mental condition. Nothing about it says that everyone should be able to reach that goal without assistance and that said assistance should be readily available and easy to request. Yes, I agree with that too -- but what I was commenting about was the Call us if you're disabled comment as being the ultimate in accessibility because that's far from it. Too many sites simply say If you have problems, call us and that's their total effort to improve conditions for the disabled AND they think they did their part -- but the truth is they haven't. But I'll be the first to say that I don't know enough about this subject, or enough differently abled people to know how they view the world. What I can say is that one persons definition of accessibility is not necessarily the same as anyone else's. That's true. But it's not that hard to put yourself in the other's shoes and see what problems they face AND how easy it is to mitigate some of those problems. The simple use of the alt attribute comes to mind -- this is something that everyone can take the time to fill out, but few do. Clearly there are many things to consider, but I claim that as one becomes aware of the problem, it becomes easier to comply. 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
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 12:32 AM -0400 8/30/08, Robert Cummings wrote: On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:25 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: Please, would all of the other readers of this mailing list write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask them to shut Robert Cummings down? Thank you. I'm sorry list *lol* But this one made me laugh so hard I had to share this last one with you. I'm gonna be grinning for days *giggle*. Cheers, Rob. Rob: I've been saying that for years. :-) But fortunately smarter minds prevailed. 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
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 3:27 PM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote: 2. you can't shut him down either, he does'nt have an off button. Yeah, he's a lot like his blow-up dolls except you can't deflate him. :-) 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
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
On 30 Aug 2008, at 15:02, tedd wrote: At 12:05 AM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote: To me accessibility means that everyone is able to use something to achieve a goal regardless of their physical or mental condition. Nothing about it says that everyone should be able to reach that goal without assistance and that said assistance should be readily available and easy to request. Yes, I agree with that too -- but what I was commenting about was the Call us if you're disabled comment as being the ultimate in accessibility because that's far from it. Too many sites simply say If you have problems, call us and that's their total effort to improve conditions for the disabled AND they think they did their part -- but the truth is they haven't. There's a big difference in my mind between If you have problems getting past this CAPTCHA please call us and If you have problems, call us. I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that in the first instance the phone call would result in the user being able to get past the CAPTCHA. In this instance special steps need to be taken to technically enable a phone conversation to get a user past the CAPTCHA. In more general terms we are in complete agreement. Websites should do everything they can to make their sites as accessible as possible. I can count on one hand the number of companies I've worked with who took colour blindness into consideration when (re)designing their site. What I find particularly daft is that when you look at requirements for accessibility most of them are the same as requirements for good SEO, so I don't understand why more sites don't have alt tags everywhere, and text-only optimisation. CAPTCHA's are a special case due to the problem it's trying to solve. The very things they're trying to prevent are enabled by making them accessible. I'm sure in time progress will be made in this area but in the meantime I stand by my assertion that a 'phone number people can call with any type of telephone to interact with another human who can get them past the check without compromising the protection the check affords is ultimate accessibility. -Stut -- http://stut.net// -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
At 1:30 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: I finally managed to get to Tedds site It's not that hard, try: http://rx-2.com And you said: Now, I haven't worked in pharmaceuticals, but I've worked in most European countries. So it's probably just me, but I've _never_ come across the Rx symbol before. I don't think it's as global as you think. Okay, please permit me some literary license -- after all, this is my retirement plan. :-) My source for my claim is simply and directly taken from Unicode -- that's THE authority on global glyphs. I am also positive that every Pharmaceutical company in the world recognizes that symbol. Now, does everyone in the world recognize the symbol -- I don't know. But I do know that IF there is a global Pharmaceutical symbol, then it would be listed in the Unicode database and this is the only symbol that's there. What do you think about the yin-yang symbol? http://xn--w4h.com I think one billion Chinese know that one. I just hope that I don't have to wait until one billion Chinese have PC's to find a buyer. :-) 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
[PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
At 1:20 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: I think the problem is mostly on the domain owner side though - if you register a domain for publishing something or other, but most of your intended audience cannot enter it in an easy, straight-forward way, you've only shot yourself in the foot, haven't you? That's true, but what are the alternatives? If you want a single character domain name: 1) you can't get one; 2) if and when they do become available the cost is going to be prohibitive for most -- see this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/28/tech/main1080245.shtml At present (until keyboard technology gets MUCH better) all I am offering is simply a change in what appears in the URL box of the browser window IF the browser is capable of showing Unicode code-points -- IE's aren't. Granted, that's not much -- but I've seen fortunes made on from less. This is just one of my many screwy nit-wit ideas -- and sometimes they pay off. I wish I could have kept some of the money I pissed away in my younger years. But I spent it on liquor, good times, parties, and like a damned fool I squandered the rest. 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
[PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
At 1:23 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: tedd wrote: But as it is now, it's not so much IF the domain name is easy to type in or not, but rather does the Rx.com show up in the URL once you get there? And it does for most browsers other than IE. You can get to the site very easily, try typing: http://rx-2.com That wasn't hard, now was it? What should have happened here, Tedd? I just got the message you have the wrong Browser - I'm using Firefox, I thought that was perfectly capable of using IDNs. /Per Jessen, Zürich Unfortunately and surprisingly (at least to me), FireFox does not allow Unicode code-points to appear in the URL -- it uses PUNYCODE instead. So you were directed to get a different browser. Try Safari on either Mac or Windozes or Opera. Those will get you to the site without a redirect. If this had been an easier problem, then I'm sure I could have sold my names by now. 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
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
tedd wrote: At 1:30 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: I finally managed to get to Tedds site It's not that hard, try: http://rx-2.com Yeah, but that _only_ takes me to rx-2.com, nothing else? And you said: Now, I haven't worked in pharmaceuticals, but I've worked in most European countries. So it's probably just me, but I've _never_ come across the Rx symbol before. I don't think it's as global as you think. Okay, please permit me some literary license -- after all, this is my retirement plan. :-) My source for my claim is simply and directly taken from Unicode -- that's THE authority on global glyphs. Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not make it global, in my opinion. In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all. Think about the alphabets such as: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Bopomofo, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Georgian, Greek and Coptic, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Hangul, Hebrew, Hiragana, Kannada, Katakana, Lao, Latin, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, and Tibetan - and they were all in the first version of Unicode. (I'm quoting from wikipedia). What do you think about the yin-yang symbol? http://xn--w4h.com That one is probably several orders of magnitude more global than the Rx, but typing them remains a problem for both :-) I was actualy very surprised to see that such arbitrary symbols have been opened for use with e.g. .com. The national registrars around Europe have quite a limited set of special chars that can be used - AFAIK none of them include the special symbols that you've registered. Good luck with your retirement plan :-) /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
At 1:38 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: Interesting - I copy-pasted the Rx symbol (from your webpage) into FF and appended .com - and FF converted the URL symbol to xn--u2g.com. I guess FF only works with a limited subset of the many possible special characters. What is happening there is FF and other browsers are afraid of homographic attacks. A homographic attack is simply where the URL in the browser *looks* like another, but is not. For example, early on in this How do we solve the 7-bit problem? with the net, it was brought up that there are many code points in the Unicode database that look exactly the same as others. One individual (I can't remember his name at the moment) took the liberty of registering a domain name (i.e., PayPal.com) that use an a from different charset than English. While there was no intent to defraud anyone, PayPal wasn't amused and legislation followed -- the specifics of which I have no information. But the entire process demonstrated that evil-doers could register domains that look like other domains and thus fool people. What some browser developers did was to NOT make the conversion from PUNYCODE to the correct code-points but rather show the PUNYCODE as-is, which was never the intent of the IDNS WG. This act defeated the entire process of allowing non-English people to have non-English domain names. This like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I claim that the process can be solved differently and more effectively. All browser developers have to do is to evaluate the PUNYCODE string and if it's made up from a collection of different charsets, then just color it. I think making the URL RED would be a better warning than showing PUNYCODE -- but that's my opinion. 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
Re: [PHP] Function __call
Diogo Neves schreef:
thanks,
well, the 'new' woks the same with ou without '()' after class, I think...
you think? I gave you code that shows exactly that.
but you wrote the following:
new $user = new user();
which is not correct, the first new in that line is a syntax error.
that means you didn't cut and paste the exact code you were using,
which is bad practice.
and I now how it works, i only don't understand why... if the method
is not available outside of class it should go to __call function like
if it doesn't exist...
this is not how it works. 'method is not available' does not mean 'method
does not exist', __call is executed when a method does not exist.
it doesn't make any sense to anyone else?
it makes sense that you think it should work the way you describe,
but it doesn't. it's not a bug it's by design.
also your example is rather silly. you make a method private
then you want to expose the very same method publically via __call(),
quite simply the method should be public in that example.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diogo Neves schreef:
hi all,
I'm sending this email only to ask if someone know if the works of
__call in private methods is bug or feature.
ex.
class user {
public function __call ( $name, $arguments ) {
do something
return call_user_func( array( $this, $name ), $arguments );
the fatal error occurs because the method exists, but it's
private ... __call() is only called if the method does not exist
at all:
class user {
public function __call($m, $a) {
if (is_callable(array($this, _.$m)))
return $this-{_.$m}( $a );
}
private function _xpto($a)
{
var_dump($a);
}
}
$u = new user;
$u-xpto(1, 2, 3);
}
private function xpto ( $arguments ) {
do something
}
}
new $user = new user();
the first 'new' is incorrect me thinks.
$user-xpto();
error:
Fatal error: Call to private method user::xpto() from context '' in
xpto.php on line 11
PS:
what a fucking I was thinking?
well, it don't have this public method, then it sholdn't know it
exists, then go to __call()
i really don't know if it make any sense to someone else, but it still
make sense to me
any thoughts?
Thanks by your attention,
Diogo Neves
Developer @ Sapo.pt by PrimeIT.pt
Thanks by your attention,
Diogo Neves
Developer @ Sapo.pt by PrimeIT.pt
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
At 5:29 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not make it global, in my opinion. In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all. Think about the alphabets such as: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Bopomofo, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Georgian, Greek and Coptic, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Hangul, Hebrew, Hiragana, Kannada, Katakana, Lao, Latin, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, and Tibetan - and they were all in the first version of Unicode. (I'm quoting from wikipedia). Why does those languages appearing in Unicode NOT make Unicode global? Maybe we have a difference in they way we perceive Global. Unicode is setup to contain ALL the languages in the world, not replace them. This has come about from an exhaustive (and still continuing) analysis of every glyph known to mankind. It is an Herculean effort to categorize all languages and dialects known to man -- that's the purpose here. So, if you find a code-point in the Unicode dB, then it's a good chance that it's an honest character found in some language or charset somewhere. You also said: I was actualy very surprised to see that such arbitrary symbols have been opened for use with e.g. .com. The national registrars around Europe have quite a limited set of special chars that can be used - AFAIK none of them include the special symbols that you've registered. There's nothing arbitrary about these symbols -- they are symbols. Symbols have meanings too. The DOT COM TLD registrar simply made the decision to allow symbols to be registered while other TDL registrars have different rules -- some do, some don't. I'm not sure that I had anything to do with their (IDSN WG) decision process, but I was certainly there to support my vested interest. Many times I felt that I was going to lose my names. In fact, I was only allowed to register my names ($100 a pop) on the basis that a test period would ensue and if they did not find any problems, then I could keep them -- however, if they did find any problems, then I would lose them without refund. Fortunately, no one protested and I still have my names. Are they worth anything? I dunno, but I'm betting that they will be someday -- hopefully in my lifetime. To bring this thread back to php, that's what the mb_ functions are about, namely dealing with Unicode strings. The combination of Unicode and the mb_ functions provides us with the ability to be able to communicate in every language in the world. That's not a small accomplishment. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bug in array_key_exist?
Korgan schreef:
Korgan napsal(a):
Jim Lucas napsal(a):
Korgan wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with array_key_exists in if statement.
I have a class with this function
class XXX {
private items = array();
...
...
...
public function addXXX($id, $count)
{
$count = (int)$cout;
Let me point at it
Check your spelling
If error_reporting was set to E_ALL AND display_errors were turned
on, you would see that you are using an undefined variable in your
method called $cout, casting is as an int and assigning the resulting
value (which would always be zero) to $count.
Sorry i didnt see it :). In the script is $count = (int)$count;
no point in anyone trying to help you then, because you don't post the code
you use, you post something else instead ... this is not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
btw there is practically no chance of a bug being in array_key_exists() and
you being the first to spot it, as a function it's used way too much to be
able to fly under the bug radar. jmho.
After add a item value is ok look at first B vardump which is on the end
of the script.
No variable $count is mandatory so that is defined.
But its not main idea of my question...
Function add items correctly, but if go to next page, values in array
change. Values are changed passing from one page to another one, why
and where?
if (!array_key_exists($id, $this-items))
$this-items[$id] = $count;
else
$this-items[$id] += $count;
}
...
...
}
And I want to send instance of this class with SESSION.
If I add a item to the array, count is ok, but if i go to the next
page count will change.
There is the code of index.php
/** its loading classes ***/
spl_autoload_register('loadClass');
session_start();
var_dump($_SESSION['XX']); /** A **/
...
...
...
if ($_SESSION['XX'] instanceof XXX)
$x = $_SESSION['XX'];
else
new...
..
..
/** Do onzl this **/
if
$x-addXXX($id, $cnt);
...
...
$_SESSION['XX'] = X;
var_dump($_SESSION['XX']); /** B **/
There is a vardump if action addXXX exec:
A:
object(Kosik)#1 (1) { [zbozi:private]= array(0) { } }
B:
object(Kosik)#1 (1) { [zbozi:private]= array(1) { [1]=
int(1) } }
And than i will go to some page and vardums are:
A:
object(Kosik)#1 (1) { [zbozi:private]= array(1) { [1]=
int(4) } } 1 : 4
B:
object(Kosik)#1 (1) { [zbozi:private]= array(1) { [1]=
int(4) } }
I am thinking that do both codes in if statement,
but $this-items[$id] += $count; exec after send page.
I am using PHP Version 5.2.6 and Smarty v.2.6.19
Thanks for help :)
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
At 3:25 PM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote: in the meantime I stand by my assertion that a 'phone number people can call with any type of telephone to interact with another human who can get them past the check without compromising the protection the check affords is ultimate accessibility. Well, even you can't be right all of the time. :-) That's not bad out of all we discussed to have only one difference of opinion. 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
Re: [PHP] Function __call
please keep replies on list unless your intending to pay me
an hourly fee ...
Diogo Neves schreef:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diogo Neves schreef:
...
nop... I wanna manipulate the $this and the $arguments, and possible
don't even execute the private method...
I'm tring to develop a hook system for my classes... and i simple
don't wanna to do all the hook verification every method of the class
I'll send my files for you to see what I'm doing in do something on
my __call() funtion
the code looks messy what with the global $hooks, functions required for hooking
(the function name class_hooker() is very funny btw) and you seem to
be mixing static/non-static class calls willy-nilly.
I'd rethink this if I we're you. if every can be hooked, then make the
hooking should be part of a base class, possibly a factory method for object
creation will help to keep things clean and in one place. a generic 'hooking'
decorator object might also be an idea. or maybe just using subclasses to
change/augment behaviour is a much simpler and cleaner approach.
your code makes me think of the hooking mechanism in WordPress ... works okay,
but it's a nightmare to code to (imho).
BTW. function and method names beginning with '__' are considered reserved
by the engine, it's not best practice to name userland functions/methods
things like '__magic'
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diogo Neves schreef:
hi all,
I'm sending this email only to ask if someone know if the works of
__call in private methods is bug or feature.
ex.
class user {
public function __call ( $name, $arguments ) {
do something
return call_user_func( array( $this, $name ), $arguments );
the fatal error occurs because the method exists, but it's
private ... __call() is only called if the method does not exist
at all:
class user {
public function __call($m, $a) {
if (is_callable(array($this, _.$m)))
return $this-{_.$m}( $a );
}
private function _xpto($a)
{
var_dump($a);
}
}
$u = new user;
$u-xpto(1, 2, 3);
}
private function xpto ( $arguments ) {
do something
}
}
new $user = new user();
the first 'new' is incorrect me thinks.
$user-xpto();
error:
Fatal error: Call to private method user::xpto() from context '' in
xpto.php on line 11
PS:
what a fucking I was thinking?
well, it don't have this public method, then it sholdn't know it
exists, then go to __call()
i really don't know if it make any sense to someone else, but it still
make sense to me
any thoughts?
Thanks by your attention,
Diogo Neves
Developer @ Sapo.pt by PrimeIT.pt
Thanks by your attention,
Diogo Neves
Developer @ Sapo.pt by PrimeIT.pt
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] ASCII Captcha
tedd schreef: At 3:25 PM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote: in the meantime I stand by my assertion that a 'phone number people can call with any type of telephone to interact with another human who can get them past the check without compromising the protection the check affords is ultimate accessibility. Well, even you can't be right all of the time. :-) That's not bad out of all we discussed to have only one difference of opinion. obviously Cummings' brainwashing program is not 100% effective ;-) Cheers, tedd -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Individual bulk e-mails - performance question
Hi everybody, I am running a travel community where users want to get informed on changes inside different groups they have subscribed to. At the moment I am doing this with a for loop that generates an individual e-mail sent to them via phpmailer. That works, however the submit of the content upload form (that triggers the e-mail notification) now takes several seconds, as more and more users subscribe. I am thinking about placing the info on the individual e-mail inside a ascii txt file that will be read by a cron job which will send the e-mail instead. Something like every 5 minutes reading it line by line and then after sending it removing the line. e.g: for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:individual for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:other email Does this sound like a plan? Or do you believe that there are better ways doing it? I could imagine that I would run into problems a few months from now if for example the cron job will be triggered a second time, while the first one has not finished. Any ideas or suggestions? Thank you for any help. Best regards, Merlin -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Recommendation
As such, if any of the regulars to this list are in need of a recommendation, please contact me off-list. Thank you very much! :-) http://www.linkedin.com/in/heyesr -- Richard Heyes HTML5 Graphing: http://www.phpguru.org/RGraph -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Function __call
Hi, On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please keep replies on list unless your intending to pay me an hourly fee ... Yeap, i'm new in the list and i missed te cc of list... i'll try to remember, sorry Diogo Neves schreef: Now in understand schreef is from da system... On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Diogo Neves schreef: ... nop... I wanna manipulate the $this and the $arguments, and possible don't even execute the private method... I'm tring to develop a hook system for my classes... and i simple don't wanna to do all the hook verification every method of the class I'll send my files for you to see what I'm doing in do something on my __call() funtion the code looks messy what with the global $hooks, functions required for hooking Yeap, but i'm only making tests... i'm not too horried about mess yet... (the function name class_hooker() is very funny btw) ok... i missed that in my english... added :) and you seem to be mixing static/non-static class calls willy-nilly. I'm never calling something static, i'm? I'd rethink this if I we're you. if every can be hooked, then make the hooking should be part of a base class, possibly a factory method for object creation will help to keep things clean and in one place. a generic 'hooking' decorator object might also be an idea. or maybe just using subclasses to change/augment behaviour is a much simpler and cleaner approach. yep... i'm thinking of a base class, but that has nothing to do with the __call, if u see, i'm already passing the get_class( $this ) and not __CLASS__ on call_user_func of the user, but again only testing your code makes me think of the hooking mechanism in WordPress ... works okay, but it's a nightmare to code to (imho). right again, i'm trying to do a wapper for phpbb class's that have a similar hook system, but needs to be defined method by method, function by function... like a big mess... and even like that i don't get yet the criteria to have a hook or not :) BTW. function and method names beginning with '__' are considered reserved by the engine, it's not best practice to name userland functions/methods things like '__magic' Yeap, in this case is my naming that is really pretty bad, but i needed something diferent from the normal hookable methods, then I simple added a '_'... but again tests, naming and code organization was not a horry, only logic... But again, i don't see why your php should see your class's private methods outside of itself, it should simple look for a public one, if it exists then call it, otherwise call the _call and let it handle it :S Anyway, thanks for answer me and give me that points, and if u know a really good hoking system, please give me reference ;) And please anyone else has an opinion of it should work or not? Thanks -- Thanks by your attention, Diogo Neves Web Developer @ SAPO.pt by PrimeIT.pt -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 1:38 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: Interesting - I copy-pasted the Rx symbol (from your webpage) into FF and appended .com - and FF converted the URL symbol to xn--u2g.com. I guess FF only works with a limited subset of the many possible special characters. What is happening there is FF and other browsers are afraid of homographic attacks. A homographic attack is simply where the URL in the browser *looks* like another, but is not. For example, early on in this How do we solve the 7-bit problem? with the net, it was brought up that there are many code points in the Unicode database that look exactly the same as others. One individual (I can't remember his name at the moment) took the liberty of registering a domain name (i.e., PayPal.com) that use an a from different charset than English. While there was no intent to defraud anyone, PayPal wasn't amused and legislation followed -- the specifics of which I have no information. But the entire process demonstrated that evil-doers could register domains that look like other domains and thus fool people. What some browser developers did was to NOT make the conversion from PUNYCODE to the correct code-points but rather show the PUNYCODE as-is, which was never the intent of the IDNS WG. This act defeated the entire process of allowing non-English people to have non-English domain names. This like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I claim that the process can be solved differently and more effectively. All browser developers have to do is to evaluate the PUNYCODE string and if it's made up from a collection of different charsets, then just color it. I think making the URL RED would be a better warning than showing PUNYCODE -- but that's my opinion. Cheers, tedd Wait a minute - you're going to rail on for ever on another thread about web in-accessibility with CAPTCHA and then you're going to propose something that relies on color coding for something that important? What about all those with red/green color blindness? Andrew -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Function __call
Diogo Neves schreef: Hi, On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please keep replies on list unless your intending to pay me an hourly fee ... Yeap, i'm new in the list and i missed te cc of list... i'll try to remember, sorry okay. Diogo Neves schreef: Now in understand schreef is from da system... no my email client in in dutch ... it means 'wrote' ... actually that's in the list archives already :-) On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Diogo Neves schreef: ... nop... I wanna manipulate the $this and the $arguments, and possible don't even execute the private method... I'm tring to develop a hook system for my classes... and i simple don't wanna to do all the hook verification every method of the class I'll send my files for you to see what I'm doing in do something on my __call() funtion the code looks messy what with the global $hooks, functions required for hooking Yeap, but i'm only making tests... i'm not too horried about mess yet... (the function name class_hooker() is very funny btw) ok... i missed that in my english... added :) and you seem to be mixing static/non-static class calls willy-nilly. I'm never calling something static, i'm? er, no ... but I had to re-read the code a few times. I'd rethink this if I we're you. if every can be hooked, then make the hooking should be part of a base class, possibly a factory method for object creation will help to keep things clean and in one place. a generic 'hooking' decorator object might also be an idea. or maybe just using subclasses to change/augment behaviour is a much simpler and cleaner approach. yep... i'm thinking of a base class, but that has nothing to do with the __call, if u see, i'm already passing the get_class( $this ) and not __CLASS__ on call_user_func of the user, but again only testing your code makes me think of the hooking mechanism in WordPress ... works okay, but it's a nightmare to code to (imho). right again, i'm trying to do a wapper for phpbb class's that have a similar hook system, but needs to be defined method by method, function by function... like a big mess... and even like that i don't get yet the criteria to have a hook or not :) as you are finding out, creating an elegant solution to this problem is not as easy as it may seem ... especially if you stuck with integrating to a 3rd party application. BTW. function and method names beginning with '__' are considered reserved by the engine, it's not best practice to name userland functions/methods things like '__magic' Yeap, in this case is my naming that is really pretty bad, but i needed something diferent from the normal hookable methods, then I simple added a '_'... but again tests, naming and code organization was not a horry, only logic... the single prefixed underscore to private method names will probably be the easiest implementation ... note that passing every method call via __call() is a rather large performance hit. But again, i don't see why your php should see your class's private methods outside of itself, it should simple look for a public one, if it exists then call it, otherwise call the _call and let it handle it :S Anyway, thanks for answer me and give me that points, and if u know a really good hoking system, please give me reference ;) I guess AdultFriendFinder is not the right answer :-P And please anyone else has an opinion of it should work or not? again, NO it should NOT. it was not designed that way. search the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a possible answer as to why, and you might considering asking that list why it doesn't work the way you think it should ... note that I doubt very much it will change because such a change would incur major BC breakage. Thanks -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
Your reply is a bit off-topic, and i agree u should care about all those with red/green color blindness, but u should care with all those how dislike spam too. Then, unless u know a really good alternative to a CAPTCHA, i believe its yet the better solution... PS: u can answer and discuse this on the original thread too ;) -- Thanks by your attention, Diogo Neves Web Developer @ SAPO.pt by PrimeIT.pt -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Diogo Neves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your reply is a bit off-topic, and i agree u should care about all those with red/green color blindness, but u should care with all those how dislike spam too. Then, unless u know a really good alternative to a CAPTCHA, i believe its yet the better solution... PS: u can answer and discuse this on the original thread too ;) -- Thanks by your attention, Diogo Neves Web Developer @ SAPO.pt by PrimeIT.pt Wait a minute. I wasn't trying to jump into the CAPTCHA debate. That is another thread entirely, and I agree that any further discussion should be kept in that thread. I was only contrasting tedd's current suggestion regarding how browsers could handle his Unicode domain names where he suggested color-coding the URL in the address bar against his earlier (well thought out and presented) concerns about maintaining accessibility. In this case, I'm not even saying that tedd's basic concept -- altering the appearance to indicate a Unicode URL that could otherwise be confused with something similar -- is flawed. I'm just agreeing that the as identified by the browser vendors is valid. Combine that with the steps they've already taken to add icons and color code URLs for easy confirmation of a site's identity when using SSL, and it becomes more complicated -- especially when each has to compliment the others to prevent confusion while still remaining accessible. In that sense, they have already taken his idea and done something much simpler: they've simplified the character set. No additional colors, no extra icons to have to decipher, etc. Andrew -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
Well, i really really believe that urls should keep clear as water... http://forcaaerea.pt should exist, and not http://forçaaérea.pt... even because in reality its http://xn--foraarea-u0aw.pt Its a big mess... How to keep it clear? don't mess up with your domains if you care about your clients -- Thanks by your attention, Diogo Neves Web Developer @ SAPO.pt by PrimeIT.pt -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Individual bulk e-mails - performance question
Merlin wrote: I am thinking about placing the info on the individual e-mail inside a ascii txt file that will be read by a cron job which will send the e-mail instead. Something like every 5 minutes reading it line by line and then after sending it removing the line. e.g: for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:individual for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:other email Does this sound like a plan? Or do you believe that there are better ways doing it? Sounds pretty good to me. I could imagine that I would run into problems a few months from now if for example the cron job will be triggered a second time, while the first one has not finished. That's easily taken care of. Instead of a cron-job, you could have a script running as a daemon, checking for emails to be sent every 5mins. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
tedd wrote: At 5:29 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not make it global, in my opinion. In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all. Think about the alphabets such as: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Bopomofo, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Georgian, Greek and Coptic, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Hangul, Hebrew, Hiragana, Kannada, Katakana, Lao, Latin, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, and Tibetan - and they were all in the first version of Unicode. (I'm quoting from wikipedia). Why does those languages appearing in Unicode NOT make Unicode global? Maybe we have a difference in they way we perceive Global. Uh, we're not talking about Unicode itself, but about whether individual symbols (that happen to also be represented in unicode) are global or not. AFAIk, every symbol that is currently represented in Unicode existed before Unicode came around, and Unicode didn't all of a sudden confer a global status onto them. A global symbol to me is something that is used/recognised/present in several different countries and cultures around the world. I think the Ying-Yang is easily a globally recognised symbol, whereas Rx isn't. Coca-Cola is global, Mezzo-Mix and Rivella aren't. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
tedd wrote: What some browser developers did was to NOT make the conversion from PUNYCODE to the correct code-points but rather show the PUNYCODE as-is, which was never the intent of the IDNS WG. This act defeated the entire process of allowing non-English people to have non-English domain names. This like throwing the baby out with the bath water. But that's not what FF does though - it has no problem with other domain names with international characters. For instance, the normal Danish, German, French, Spanish and Icelandic characters work just fine. I have a testing domain which contains an 'ë' - also no problem. It seems to be just somewhat limited to those (and others I'm sure). /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What's with the Rx symbol?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Per Jessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tedd wrote: At 5:29 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not make it global, in my opinion. In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all. Think about the alphabets such as: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Bopomofo, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Georgian, Greek and Coptic, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Hangul, Hebrew, Hiragana, Kannada, Katakana, Lao, Latin, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, and Tibetan - and they were all in the first version of Unicode. (I'm quoting from wikipedia). Why does those languages appearing in Unicode NOT make Unicode global? Maybe we have a difference in they way we perceive Global. Uh, we're not talking about Unicode itself, but about whether individual symbols (that happen to also be represented in unicode) are global or not. AFAIk, every symbol that is currently represented in Unicode existed before Unicode came around, and Unicode didn't all of a sudden confer a global status onto them. A global symbol to me is something that is used/recognised/present in several different countries and cultures around the world. I think the Ying-Yang is easily a globally recognised symbol, whereas Rx isn't. Coca-Cola is global, Mezzo-Mix and Rivella aren't. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php What about U+FDD0? http://xkcd.com/380/
Re: [PHP] Javascript mailing list
look at jquery - it will make working with javascript so much easier and has it's own community around it too. On 8/30/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Can anyone recommend a good Javascript related mailing list? Thanks. -- Richard Heyes HTML5 Graphing: http://www.phpguru.org/RGraph -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Individual bulk e-mails - performance question
Well, i have done that once and it worked pretty well... Only diference was that i had a hour limit ( think dreamhost hosting ) and used Swift Mailer, but i think it don't matter a lot ;) I think is a good solution... On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Merlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everybody, I am running a travel community where users want to get informed on changes inside different groups they have subscribed to. At the moment I am doing this with a for loop that generates an individual e-mail sent to them via phpmailer. That works, however the submit of the content upload form (that triggers the e-mail notification) now takes several seconds, as more and more users subscribe. I am thinking about placing the info on the individual e-mail inside a ascii txt file that will be read by a cron job which will send the e-mail instead. Something like every 5 minutes reading it line by line and then after sending it removing the line. e.g: for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:individual for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:other email Does this sound like a plan? Or do you believe that there are better ways doing it? I could imagine that I would run into problems a few months from now if for example the cron job will be triggered a second time, while the first one has not finished. Any ideas or suggestions? Thank you for any help. Best regards, Merlin -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- Thanks by your attention, Diogo Neves Web Developer @ SAPO.pt by PrimeIT.pt -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Javascript mailing list
May be jsninja has mailing list. I am fond of jquery. so i recommend it too. -- Blog: http://talk.cmyweb.net/ Follow me: http://twitter.com/shiplu
[PHP] how to write good code
I wanna know how to write good code in php. Not oop stuff. I wanna know how to write a good php code file. documentation, comments. indentation etc. what are the good practices?? -- Blog: http://talk.cmyweb.net/ Follow me: http://twitter.com/shiplu
Re: [PHP] how to write good code
On Aug 30, 2008, at 8:17 PM, Shiplu wrote:
I wanna know how to write good code in php.
Not oop stuff. I wanna know how to write a good php code file.
documentation, comments. indentation etc.
what are the good practices??
Studying design patterns are a great start to learning how to write
good code. Such things apply not only to PHP, but to other languages
as well.
A couple of good books are:
Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software
# ISBN-10: 0201633612
# ISBN-13: 978-0201633610
Head First Design Patterns (Head First)
# ISBN-10: 0596007124
# ISBN-13: 978-0596007126
As for comments, the best comments are those that include 'why' the
code was written the way it was. What the code does can be discerned
by studying the code and is generally less useful.
As for code style (which includes indentation), there is no single
good style...pick something that looks good to you and use it. The
most important thing is to be consistent. For example, if you choose
to write an if statement like:
if ( ... )
{
...
...
}
don't use that in some parts of your code and
if ( ... ) {
...
...
}
in other parts.
As for other tips to writing good PHP code, I'd recommend taking a
look at:
Essential PHP Security
# ISBN-10: 059600656X
# ISBN-13: 978-0596006563
But, basically, it just comes down to practice, practice and more
practice.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: Individual bulk e-mails - performance question
Hello, on 08/30/2008 02:40 PM Merlin said the following: I am running a travel community where users want to get informed on changes inside different groups they have subscribed to. At the moment I am doing this with a for loop that generates an individual e-mail sent to them via phpmailer. That works, however the submit of the content upload form (that triggers the e-mail notification) now takes several seconds, as more and more users subscribe. I am thinking about placing the info on the individual e-mail inside a ascii txt file that will be read by a cron job which will send the e-mail instead. Something like every 5 minutes reading it line by line and then after sending it removing the line. e.g: for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:individual for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:other email Does this sound like a plan? Or do you believe that there are better ways doing it? I could imagine that I would run into problems a few months from now if for example the cron job will be triggered a second time, while the first one has not finished. Any ideas or suggestions? Thank you for any help. While it is a good idea to off-load e-mail delivery to a script run from cron, it seems odd that each mail takes several seconds to deliver. I suspect that you sending messages in a less efficient way. Maybe you are queueing messages using SMTP (which is the slowest way to queue messages) or you are using sendmail on your system and it is configured by default to attempt to deliver the messages immediately, making your PHP script hang while the message is not accepted by the remote server. There are much better ways to do it by just telling the mail system to queue the messages without holding on the PHP script. On the other hand, if the time it takes build your messages but the messages have the same contents for all the receipients, you can also use some good e-mail components with caching support. In that case, I recommend that you use for instance this MIME message class that provides message body caching support, so you can send messages to different receipients and cache the building of message body parts and avoid overhead when sending to a new receipient. It also provides different means to send messages and solve the overhead of message delivery by forcing the messages to queue by your local and be delivered later whenever possible, so your PHP script is freed to send messages to other recipients. http://www.phpclasses.org/mimemessage -- Regards, Manuel Lemos Find and post PHP jobs http://www.phpclasses.org/jobs/ PHP Classes - Free ready to use OOP components written in PHP http://www.phpclasses.org/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Individual bulk e-mails - performance question
Well, I agree that sending it by an external process more specialized in sending emails can be faster and more eficient, but it's harder to control... sometimes you need to know in your php if email was really sent and do something, and while I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm sure it's a little more complicated... Yet, if sending email don't need to be tracked, then external tool world possible be better... Anyway, don't ask me how to do that, I'm more confortable doing things in PHP :) On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Manuel Lemos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, on 08/30/2008 02:40 PM Merlin said the following: I am running a travel community where users want to get informed on changes inside different groups they have subscribed to. At the moment I am doing this with a for loop that generates an individual e-mail sent to them via phpmailer. That works, however the submit of the content upload form (that triggers the e-mail notification) now takes several seconds, as more and more users subscribe. I am thinking about placing the info on the individual e-mail inside a ascii txt file that will be read by a cron job which will send the e-mail instead. Something like every 5 minutes reading it line by line and then after sending it removing the line. e.g: for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:individual for:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; body:other email Does this sound like a plan? Or do you believe that there are better ways doing it? I could imagine that I would run into problems a few months from now if for example the cron job will be triggered a second time, while the first one has not finished. Any ideas or suggestions? Thank you for any help. While it is a good idea to off-load e-mail delivery to a script run from cron, it seems odd that each mail takes several seconds to deliver. I suspect that you sending messages in a less efficient way. Maybe you are queueing messages using SMTP (which is the slowest way to queue messages) or you are using sendmail on your system and it is configured by default to attempt to deliver the messages immediately, making your PHP script hang while the message is not accepted by the remote server. There are much better ways to do it by just telling the mail system to queue the messages without holding on the PHP script. On the other hand, if the time it takes build your messages but the messages have the same contents for all the receipients, you can also use some good e-mail components with caching support. In that case, I recommend that you use for instance this MIME message class that provides message body caching support, so you can send messages to different receipients and cache the building of message body parts and avoid overhead when sending to a new receipient. It also provides different means to send messages and solve the overhead of message delivery by forcing the messages to queue by your local and be delivered later whenever possible, so your PHP script is freed to send messages to other recipients. http://www.phpclasses.org/mimemessage -- Regards, Manuel Lemos Find and post PHP jobs http://www.phpclasses.org/jobs/ PHP Classes - Free ready to use OOP components written in PHP http://www.phpclasses.org/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- Thanks for your attention, Diogo Neves Web Developer @ SAPO.pt by PrimeIT.pt -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Individual bulk e-mails - performance question
Hello, on 08/30/2008 10:40 PM Diogo Neves said the following: Well, I agree that sending it by an external process more specialized in sending emails can be faster and more eficient, but it's harder to control... sometimes you need to know in your php if email was really sent and do something, and while I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm sure it's a little more complicated... Knowing whether the message was successfully delivered or not, is something that you often will not know. Nowadays many SMTP servers use grey listing. This means that first the server says it cannot accept the message temporarily, but it will accept after several minutes. Even if the server accepts the message immediately, he may bounce or discard it later. So it is utopic to expect any reliable answer about the deliverability of a message. It is better not rely your software on the accuracy of any response from the remote server. In any case, for really urgent messages, the MIME message class can use the SMTP driver to deliver messages directly to the remote SMTP server bypasing the local mail server. If it fails the delivery, you should relay it to the local mail server to retry deliverying it later. Take a look at the test_urgent_mail.php script for an example: http://www.phpclasses.org/mimemessage Yet, if sending email don't need to be tracked, then external tool world possible be better... Anyway, don't ask me how to do that, I'm more confortable doing things in PHP :) PHP is very efficient if you use it in a smart way. For instance, you can cache message bodies using the MIME message above to avoid message composition overhead. As for the actual SMTP delivery, the network connection and TCP data exchanging is usually so slow that any overhead of PHP script execution is meaningless. -- Regards, Manuel Lemos Find and post PHP jobs http://www.phpclasses.org/jobs/ PHP Classes - Free ready to use OOP components written in PHP http://www.phpclasses.org/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Php installation
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, It flance wrote: Hi, Apache was already installed in my computer. Anyway now i can run php scripts without any problem. The problem is just that if a script contains database statements like connection to the database server, those statements are ignored while run in the browser but they are procesed if run from terminal. So i guess this is a configuration problem but i have no idea how to fix it. Thanks --- On Sat, 8/30/08, David Robley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: David Robley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PHP] Re: Php installation To: php-general@lists.php.net Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 7:03 AM It flance wrote: Hi all, I'm using Fedora 8. I installed php, mysql and apache. Now i can run a script connecting to a database from terminal but not from browser. Any suggestion? Have you configured apache to process php scripts? See item 14 at http://php.net/manual/en/install.unix.apache2.php I apologise; I misread your question as not being able to use php through apache. I wonder if your php is configured to log errors to a file, rather than displaying them on the screen when you connect via apache? Check your apache log files and see if there is something in there that is related. Cheers -- David Robley Yes, I have read Gulliver's Travels, said Tom swiftly. Today is Pungenday, the 24th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: how to write good code
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:17:18 -0400, Shiplu wrote: I wanna know how to write good code in php. Not oop stuff. I wanna know how to write a good php code file. documentation, comments. indentation etc. what are the good practices?? Find out what bad is by reading this: http://thedailywtf.com/Series/CodeSOD.aspx Then, don't do it like that! But seriously, you might want to check out this page on Wikipedia, and follow some of its references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_style -- Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia Let the laddie play wi the knife - he'll learn - The Wee Book of Calvin -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
