They are not helpful for various reasons. e.g. if you need
to ask whether a session was started, your architecture is
broken (a central place needs to manage sessions; that single
place must know whether a session has been started).
Also, the concept of session_id_exists is
Patch applied.
--Jani
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Kamesh Jayachandran wrote:
Hi Jani,
Please apply this patch which enables to build NetWare PHP extensions
using gcc cross compiler.
For 5.0
http://puggy.symonds.net/~kameshj/acinclude.m4.patch.5.0
For 5.1
On Monday 25 April 2005 8:29 pm, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Of course, send them over as a .txt attachment (diff -u) or pot them
online somewhere.
best regards
marcus
Diffs attached.
Duncan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Zend]# diff -u zend_reflection_api.c zend_reflection_api.c.new
---
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Duncan McIntyre wrote:
On Monday 25 April 2005 8:29 pm, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Of course, send them over as a .txt attachment (diff -u) or pot them
online somewhere.
best regards
marcus
Diffs attached.
Why did you incorrectly made those changes:
- Returns
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 11:47 am, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Duncan McIntyre wrote:
On Monday 25 April 2005 8:29 pm, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Of course, send them over as a .txt attachment (diff -u) or pot them
online somewhere.
best regards
marcus
Diffs
Thanks Jani.
Would be great if you can tell me how configure scripts are generated by
snapshot.
Somehow I keep getting the following error while doing a cross compile
on configure that I got from snaps.php.net.
configure: error: can only configure for one host and one target at a
time
I build
I was looking into using the Pecl PDO extension a couple of days ago.
I got it installed but when I try to use it dies. Here's the bug
report I filed:
http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=4217edit=2
I rebuilt my mod_php with debugging but I still can't get a backtrace
using gdb. Do I have to
-1 on adding this patch to the stable branches.
Edin
- Original Message -
From: Stefan Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PHP internals internals@lists.php.net
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM
Subject: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] rfc2965 version 1 cookie support
Hi,
any objections against
Sascha Schumann wrote:
They are not helpful for various reasons. e.g. if you need
to ask whether a session was started, your architecture is
broken (a central place needs to manage sessions; that single
place must know whether a session has been started).
I haven't looked in any
Hans Lellelid wrote:
I haven't looked in any detail at these functions, but wouldn't you be
able to prevent fixation by inquiring whether a particular session was
already started? -- rather than PHP's current (IMHO flawed) behavior
where a new session is simply started with whatever session is is
Stefan Esser wrote:
Hi,
I haven't looked in any detail at these functions, but wouldn't you be
able to prevent fixation by inquiring whether a particular session was
already started? -- rather than PHP's current (IMHO flawed) behavior
where a new session is simply started with whatever session
Hi,
Sorry, perhaps this is just a vocabulary misunderstanding on my part. I
thought fixation was explicitly providing the user with a fake but
known session id (e.g. '1'), whereas hijacking is taking a valid id
from another user.
yeah... Well you call it fake session id. But that is not
Stefan Esser wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, perhaps this is just a vocabulary misunderstanding on my part.
I thought fixation was explicitly providing the user with a fake but
known session id (e.g. '1'), whereas hijacking is taking a valid id
from another user.
yeah... Well you call it fake session id.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Hans Lellelid wrote:
I see your point, but I would still argue that being able to create an
arbitrary, non-server-supplied session id is far more powerful -- primarly
because it is not susceptible to session garbage collection on the server
(i.e. the valid session id I get
Was the removal of most pear package in 4.3.11 intentional?
Will any of them come back, will any of the .11 packages be removed or
an other changes coming?
Don't care either way, just want to know what the plan is.
Thanks,
Brian
# ls -alF php-4.3.1?/pear/packages/
php-4.3.10/pear/packages/:
Dan Kalowsky wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Hans Lellelid wrote:
I see your point, but I would still argue that being able to create an
arbitrary, non-server-supplied session id is far more powerful --
primarly because it is not susceptible to session garbage collection
on the server (i.e. the
Brian J. France wrote:
Was the removal of most pear package in 4.3.11 intentional?
Yes.
Will any of them come back, will any of the .11 packages be removed or
an other changes coming?
No. The only other change being considered for the future would be to
make it easier to install PEAR by
Greg Beaver wrote:
Was the removal of most pear package in 4.3.11 intentional?
Yes.
Has this been announced somewhere? I did not see anything in ChangeLog
and release notes.
The only other change being considered for the future would be to
make it easier to install PEAR by providing a single
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
If you want to rely on users to install packages (which is a good idea
IMHO) all users (not only superusers) need a reliable tool for
installation/management (also without shell-account).
Greg has made significant progress in this area (PEAR 1.4's remote
installation
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
Greg Beaver wrote:
Was the removal of most pear package in 4.3.11 intentional?
Yes.
Has this been announced somewhere? I did not see anything in ChangeLog
and release notes.
This and the other issues you raise below are PEAR issues, not internals
issues, and are/have
20 matches
Mail list logo
