On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Daniel Lowrey rdlow...@gmail.com wrote:
On further consideration this is probably better addressed by setting the
relevant socket streams to non-blocking so that a client connection can be
created in the same process space and tested utilizing select() and an
2013/9/3 Levi Morrison morrison.l...@gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Levi Morrison morrison.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
In which case we have very different ideas about what good design
is and would never
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Krebs krebs@gmail.com wrote:
That being said, there is always a point in a RFC discussion where
there is nothing left to discuss or argue about, we are so far with
this one.
We've been at this point for a while; no new arguments have been
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Bostjan Skufca bost...@a2o.si wrote:
Hi all,
there is no description to be found about what the value of
realpath_cache_size actually is.
Is it
a) max number of files/dirs in the cache or
b) overall cache size?
I checked php.ini samples distributed with
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Krebs krebs@gmail.com
wrote:
That being said, there is always a point in a RFC discussion where
there is nothing left to discuss or argue about, we are so far with
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Julien Pauli julienpa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Bostjan Skufca bost...@a2o.si wrote:
Hi all,
there is no description to be found about what the value of
realpath_cache_size actually is.
Is it
a) max number of files/dirs
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Krebs krebs@gmail.com
wrote:
That being said, there is always a point in a RFC discussion where
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Chris Wright chr...@aquacool.ltd.ukwrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Julien Pauli julienpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Bostjan Skufca bost...@a2o.si wrote:
Hi all,
there is no description to be found about what the
The stream socket functions are incredibly useful and obviate the need for
the sockets extension for the vast majority of potential use-cases.
However, it's currently it's not possible bind a socket and listen for
connections in separate steps using stream_socket_server().
This _can_ be done with
Seems reasonable to me, but Wez should probably weigh in on it. I vaguely
recall a conversation with him when he first implemented stream_socket_*()
and a reason why listen wasn't in the API.
-Sara
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Daniel Lowrey rdlow...@gmail.com wrote:
The stream socket
Hi Internals,
Our RC1 of PHP 5.5.4 has been released for testing. It fixes some bugs in
the 5.5 branch. You'll find details in the NEWS file.
The packages can be found at:
http://downloads.php.net/dsp
and windows packages at
http://windows.php.net/qa
Please test the release carefully and
I'm not opposed to the idea; the reason that I didn't implement it
initially is that I wanted something functional in the core (ext/sockets
was often not available) and we didn't have PHP Spirit equivalents of the
various and murky socket option setting APIs that are present in
ext/sockets (it's
Hi! I'm with you @Wez -- allowances for assigning common socket options
would be a major win. I'll see what I can do about working on something
more robust than this one-off function PR.
On Friday, September 6, 2013, Wez Furlong wrote:
I'm not opposed to the idea; the reason that I didn't
13 matches
Mail list logo
