Op 2-4-2010 7:16, Andi Gutmans schreef
I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off
to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no
shared data (and therefore no requirement for locking). We could then
have a message passing API between the
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Dennis Hotson dennis.hot...@gmail.comwrote:
I use pcntl_fork() for writing parallel multi-process applications and it
works pretty well.
Also, you can use shared memory queues to pass messages between processes
(ie msg_get_queue()).
I wrote a little proof of
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
Hi!
Eve Online in Stackless Python
fmspy.org http://fmspy.org with stackless python
etc.
I don't know how python does it but PHP has a
Jille Timmermans wrote:
Op 2-4-2010 7:16, Andi Gutmans schreef
I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off
to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no
shared data (and therefore no requirement for locking). We could then
have a message
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Jille Timmermans ji...@quis.cx wrote:
Op 2-4-2010 7:16, Andi Gutmans schreef
I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off
to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no
shared data (and therefore no
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Jille Timmermans wrote:
Op 2-4-2010 7:16, Andi Gutmans schreef
I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off
to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no
shared data
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 00:06, Johannes Mueller johanne...@gmx.net wrote:
Can someone please re-open bug http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49192 . For me
it's not possible, even (or because?) i'm the owner of the bug.
Your are not the owner on that bug. You didn't even comment on it.
It still
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 14:37 +0100, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
Also, what are the status of DTrace support on Windows for this patch?
DTrace is only available on MacOS, FreeBSD and MacOS. Maybe it can be
made working with SystemTap on Linux, they try to be compatible in their
APIs. Windows has
Hi, could somebody check this bug for me:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51463
I was a little bit hasty about opening and closing it, but somehow I feel
like it shouldn't be behave like this.
Tyrael
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
Hi, could somebody check this bug for me:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51463
I was a little bit hasty about opening and closing it, but somehow I feel
like it shouldn't be behave like this.
Done
Derick
--
http://derickrethans.nl |
Thank you
Tyrael
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
Hi, could somebody check this bug for me:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51463
I was a little bit hasty about opening and closing it, but somehow I feel
like
-Original Message-
From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 April 2010 08:40
To: Lester Caine
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Lester Caine
les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Jille
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Andi Gutmans a...@zend.com wrote:
Hi,
I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off
to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no
shared data (and therefore no requirement for locking). We could then
have a
-Original Message-
From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:s...@zend.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:34 PM
To: Pierre Joye
Cc: Ralph Schindler; internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On constructors: BC Break and Class compiler
Improvements
Hi!
Well, I think the question here is
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 00:06, Johannes Mueller johanne...@gmx.net
wrote:
Can someone please re-open bug http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49192
. For me it's not possible, even (or because?) i'm the owner of the
bug.
Your are not the owner on that bug. You didn't even
On 02.04.10 19:56, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
rasmus Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:56:37 +
Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=297350
Log:
Update the FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL filter to fix bug #49576
I'm referring to the following comment:
+
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Martin Jansen mar...@divbyzero.net wrote:
On 02.04.10 19:56, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
rasmus Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:56:37 +
Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=297350
Log:
Update the FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL
Hi!
class Filter {
public function __construct() { /* construct stuff */ }
public function filter($value) { /* return filtered */ }
}
Produces:
PHP Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for
class Zend\Filter\Filter in [snip file] on line [snip line]
I just checked - this
On 04/02/2010 01:22 PM, Martin Jansen wrote:
On 02.04.10 19:56, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
rasmus Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:56:37 +
Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=297350
Log:
Update the FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL filter to fix bug #49576
I was hoping to start some discussion regarding named parameters. I'm
sorry if it's frowned upon to re-post or re-paste something, but I'm
thinking that perhaps my email (with the subject Re: Hi) was
overlooked on the list in whatever readers, so I'm going to post it
again, this time with
I should also mention that most of the popular validators I checked came
to the same conclusion. There is a chart here:
http://www.dominicsayers.com/isemail/results.php
If you look closely you will see that all 5 validators in the chart
reject single-word domains.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals -
If you look closely you will see that all 5 validators in the chart
reject single-word domains.
Note that this regex also considers anyth...@localhost to be an invalid email
address.
I hear your point about the difference between a local machine named va and
the va. TLD, but I doubt I'm the
On 04/02/2010 02:37 PM, Sean Coates wrote:
If you look closely you will see that all 5 validators in the chart
reject single-word domains.
Note that this regex also considers anyth...@localhost to be an invalid email
address.
I hear your point about the difference between a local machine
Why not define multiple filters?
I did that solution with more than one framework.
There are cases when you need to validate the email of your remote users
(eg. you want to restrict j...@localhost), and there are some cases, when you
want to go all the way: validate the email by format, check the
-Original Message-
From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 April 2010 23:09
To: Rasmus Lerdorf
Cc: Sean Coates; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/
branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS
branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c
Hi!
I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off
to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no
shared data (and therefore no requirement for locking). We could then
have a message passing API between the threads.
No shared data requires
On 04/02/2010 04:47 PM, Jared Williams wrote:
Would make sense. Especially considering HTML5's current validation
rules of emails is something different again.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/states-of-
the-type-attribute.html#e-mail-state
Having a mismatch in
On 04/02/2010 02:17 PM, GM wrote:
What do you guys think? I really want PHP 6 to rock and have an even
better reputation among businesses, programmers, etc.
I really doubt named parameters would have much of an impact on
anything, but I'd be willing to consider it if a clean implementation
was
Rasmus Lerdorf:
The ABNF for an HTML5 valid email field is:
1*( atext / . ) @ ldh-str 1*( . ldh-str )
which means there must be a . in the domain part, so HTML5 doesn't think
a...@b is valid either. The left-hand side looks wrong though. It seems
to me it should be:
1*atext *(.
Hi!
I really doubt named parameters would have much of an impact on
anything, but I'd be willing to consider it if a clean implementation
was to show up.
I think they'd allow to manage complex parameter sets more efficiently
than with those $options arrays. But that'd probably require
On 2010-04-02, at 9:02 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I think they'd allow to manage complex parameter sets more efficiently than
with those $options arrays. But that'd probably require changing the way how
parameters are passed, since the stack won't work too good anymore for it.
FWIW,
Hi!
So, I think we've got consensus about not having class-named ctors in
namespaced classes in trunk, and unless I hear some screams I'll commit
the patch early next week.
What about the 5.3? (BTW, I don't see any difference between 5.3.0 and
anything later, could anybody point it to me?)
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Sent: 03 April 2010 01:20
To: Jared Williams
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/
branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS
branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c
On 04/02/2010 06:25 PM, Jared Williams wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Sent: 03 April 2010 01:20
To: Jared Williams
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/
branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS
I have SVN public access and I'm trying to find the revisions that were made
in http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=42838
There are no tags on array.c for this bug and the diff link that was posted
in the report no longer exists.
I cannot see a way to tell what changes were made to what files for this
35 matches
Mail list logo
