Hi Greg,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Greg Beaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
phar is enabled by default in order to fully test it prior to the first RC.
I proposed[1] that a final vote be undertaken just prior to the 5.3RC1
release on phar's ultimate fate.
You misread my question. Why is
Hi,
While we nearing the release of 5.3 (hopefully?), there are many
functions in the PHP code which still use old parameter parsing API
(zend_get_parameters_ex) instead of the new one (zend_parse_parameters).
I started taking care of ext/sybase_ct.
- Timm
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
Etienne Kneuss schreef:
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Etienne Kneuss schreef:
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
So, I really would like to revert that foward_static_call stuff and
PHP 6 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net/
Num Status Summary (64 total -- which includes 26 feature requests)
===[*General Issues]==
26771 Suspended register_tick_funtions crash under threaded webservers
Hi Pierre,
--with-openssl is used by ext/openssl and will continue to be used
like it is now (I'm thinking of adding --with-openssl-dir for
consistency but that's all).
This has absolutely no bearing on my question. Perhaps I expressed myself
badly.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP
Hi, Greg,
OK, you've missed my point too, so let's start over from scratch. Please
read carefully.
I am working under Windows, a little-known operating system which as yet has
no way of offering openssl support in ext/phar. My task is to make that
work.
If I set it up in the usual way,
Hi Martin,
Would --with-openssl imply --enable-phar-ssl then? Sounds like a good
idea to me.
It certainly could... but what about distro builds?
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi Pierre,
OK, I got back to the rest of your email now (caffeine always helps, eh).
I'm not sure it makes sense to have the ssl optional features enabled
but not ext/openssl. Or to say it better, I don't see the gain. What
is the gain besides being able to say: heh you can use the ssl
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing that Windows users don't tend to roll their own PHP. They
tend to pick and choose their extensions.
I still miss your point here, I was only talking about bins releases
for windows.
At present, if someone
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and the same is not true of parent::? besides which I doubt any same code
would actually break if the semantics of self:: changed, much less than
if parent:: changed at any rate.
The behavior of the parent:: as it relates
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
if nobody with C hacking skills is feeling sufficient pain over this,
the assumption is that the pool of users is too small or the pain is too
small.
Hi,
sorry for such late reply, but I just joined this group. I'm very
interested in Firebird's future in PHP and I
On 23.06.2008, at 14:54, Milan Babuskov wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
if nobody with C hacking skills is feeling sufficient pain over
this, the assumption is that the pool of users is too small or the
pain is too small.
sorry for such late reply, but I just joined this group. I'm very
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Milan Babuskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
if nobody with C hacking skills is feeling sufficient pain over this, the
assumption is that the pool of users is too small or the pain is too small.
Hi,
sorry for such late reply, but I just
Hey Pierre,
--enable-phar-ssl and do (not tested but it gives the idea):
if (PHP_PHAR_SSL == yes) {
ADD_EXTENSION_DEP(phar, openssl, true);
} else {
Erm... no, you've definitely missed the point. ADD_EXTENSION_DEP() only
works in one of the four possible scenarios, and that one is
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can sign and verify OpenSSL signatures without ext/openssl if we have the
library dependency. In other words, this (with the module checks in util.c
commented out) works fine:
I finally took a look at why phar is not
Pierre Joye wrote:
if nobody with C hacking skills is feeling sufficient pain over this, the
assumption is that the pool of users is too small or the pain is too small.
sorry for such late reply, but I just joined this group. I'm very interested
in Firebird's future in PHP and I have C skills.
Hi!
It seems natural to think of LSB as a language feature, and so it
doesn't feel right to have it partly implemented as a keyword, and
then fix the problematic part as function.
There's nothing wrong with functions - call_user_* are functions too,
and func_get_args(), etc.
We already
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main question now is why don't you actually reflect the (optional)
dependencies? bz2 and zlib compression available will not be available
if bz2 or zlib is not present, same for openssl.
What do you mean? In config.w32?
if (!PHAR_G(has_zlib)) ...
Pierre, you'd still need to test for them at runtime whether they were
listed as a soft dependency or not!
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if (!PHAR_G(has_zlib)) ...
Pierre, you'd still need to test for them at runtime whether they were
listed as a soft dependency or not!
No, not if they are not soft dependencies, this is what is done in 99%
of the php exts
Hi!
why would anyone need that?
To use function that does use static without dependence on in which
context if was called (or, explaining it other way, when your chain of
inheritance serves multiple purposes):
class ActiveRecord {
static function getRow($condition) {
Hi!
Now, when we're at it, my experience with MSVC and Windows command line
tools is almost none. I tried to build PHP 5.3 with it, but the guide on
PHP website has some errors (some stuff just isn't where it says it is,
and it seems some steps are skipped. Also, the 'configure' script used
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Milan Babuskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre Joye wrote:
if nobody with C hacking skills is feeling sufficient pain over this,
the
assumption is that the pool of users is too small or the pain is too
small.
sorry for such late reply, but I just joined
Hi!
Hmm, seems like a good idea. If nobody objects in the next few days,
I'll rewrite my patch to use objects instead of resources. What class
name do you suggest?
While we are at it maybe even having special standard handler
(__invoke?) that could be also used by objects created by
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
It seems natural to think of LSB as a language feature, and so it
doesn't feel right to have it partly implemented as a keyword, and
then fix the problematic part as function.
There's nothing wrong with
Hi Stas,
Am Montag, den 23.06.2008, 09:57 -0700 schrieb Stanislav Malyshev:
[...]
Why having parent:: at all then? You could always use the class name,
right? But for some reason we do have parent:: - and that reason is
that using explicit class name is not a good style in this context, it
Hi Stas,
Am Montag, den 23.06.2008, 10:56 -0700 schrieb Stanislav Malyshev:
What do you think?
I really love that idea. Real Functors¹ in PHP, great!
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_object
cu, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Steph Fox wrote:
Hi Pierre,
OK, I got back to the rest of your email now (caffeine always helps, eh).
I'm not sure it makes sense to have the ssl optional features enabled
but not ext/openssl. Or to say it better, I don't see the gain. What
is the gain besides being able to say: heh you can
Pierre Joye wrote:
As testing has_xxx at runtime looks shiny and powerful, I don't think
it is worth the pain.
What pain?
Greg
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Monday 23 June 2008 3:21:54 pm Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Stas,
Am Montag, den 23.06.2008, 09:57 -0700 schrieb Stanislav Malyshev:
[...]
Why having parent:: at all then? You could always use the class name,
right? But for some reason we do have parent:: - and that reason is
that using
On 6/23/08, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
why would anyone need that?
To use function that does use static without dependence on in which context
if was called (or, explaining it other way, when your chain of inheritance
serves multiple purposes):
class
31 matches
Mail list logo
