i know the standard answer ("when it's ready") but the last set of
discussions on the issue indicated that Zeev and Andi wanted to push it out
the door ASAP. i've noticed a lot of CVS changes since the last time, and i
want to upgrade my extension, but i only want to do so against a released
beta.
i know the standard answer ("when it's ready") but the last set of
discussions on the issue indicated that Zeev and Andi wanted to push it out
the door ASAP. i've noticed a lot of CVS changes since the last time, and i
want to upgrade my extension, but i only want to do so against a released
beta.
Hello Sterling,
Thursday, June 19, 2003, 2:15:06 AM, you wrote:
SH> This is what I can think of for a concrete todo before the beta...
SH> http://www.php.net/~sterling/php5/BETA
SH> any thing i missed? anything extraeneous?
What about type hints for arrays ?
--
Best regards,
Marcus
At 06:18 PM 6/21/2003 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote:
I'll port COM if no else will; however, I'm way too busy for this be done by
the 30th if that is when you plan to release the beta.
I don't see a problem with COM support not being in the beta. It's a small
part of PHP usage.
Andi
--
PHP Internals
At 07:20 PM 6/21/2003 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I don't think it is very important. If no one steps up to do this I
> suggest we keep COM broken until someone does so.
Isn't COM obsoleted by .Net (and thus ext/com by ext/mono) anyhow?
Nope. COM will continue to live e
No, to use .net or mono, you need to have .net or mono installed.
COM is always installed.
> Isn't COM obsoleted by .Net (and thus ext/com by ext/mono) anyhow?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I don't think it is very important. If no one steps up to do this I
> suggest we keep COM broken until someone does so.
Isn't COM obsoleted by .Net (and thus ext/com by ext/mono) anyhow?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpe
I'll port COM if no else will; however, I'm way too busy for this be done by
the 30th if that is when you plan to release the beta.
> >We still need some volunteers for:
> >
> >a) Porting COM
>
> I don't think it is very important. If no one steps up to do this I
suggest
> we keep COM broken until
At 11:54 AM 6/21/2003 -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
I've added some names to the list as per your extension.
We still need some volunteers for:
a) Porting COM
I don't think it is very important. If no one steps up to do this I suggest
we keep COM broken until someone does so.
b) What is the fin
I've added some names to the list as per your extension.
We still need some volunteers for:
a) Porting COM
b) What is the final status of mbstring?
c) Status on mysqli from the mysql folks. PHP is not OSI approved
(yet), will it be ok to keep mysqli in the betas?
-Sterling
On Sat, 2003-06-21 a
Hello Andi,
Saturday, June 21, 2003, 11:14:28 AM, you wrote:
[...]
>>p.s.: And i'd still like to have final classes
AG> No big deal IMO and not necessary for the beta.
quite right :-)
--
Best regards,
Marcusmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtim
At 08:15 PM 6/18/2003 -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
This is what I can think of for a concrete todo before the beta...
http://www.php.net/~sterling/php5/BETA
any thing i missed? anything extraeneous?
These are very small tasks. I suggest we assign owners to each and aim for
the 30th of June for
At 03:46 PM 6/19/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
Hello Sterling,
We need exceptions instead of errors whenever a try/catch block is
entered or a constructor gets called. This is a very easy thing to
implement but we need a consensus before doing so.
You can always throw the exception manually in
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Börger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:47 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Marcus Börger; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] php5 beta
> And once again there is only a problem when mixing old an
Hello l0t3k,
Friday, June 20, 2003, 4:56:01 PM, you wrote:
l> "George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
l> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 10:04 AM, l0t3k wrote:
>> Why don't use just throw an exception yourself in your extension code?
>> I'm for error
Hello Zeev,
Friday, June 20, 2003, 5:09:19 PM, you wrote:
ZS> At 03:21 20/06/2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
>>In other words i'd like E_WARNINGS to be converted, because that is the normal
>>message generated from functions like database errors ...
ZS> In other words, different people have very diff
At 03:21 20/06/2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
In other words i'd like E_WARNINGS to be converted, because that is the normal
message generated from functions like database errors ...
In other words, different people have very different views about what this
should look like, very contradictory ideas.
On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 10:56 AM, l0t3k wrote:
"George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 10:04 AM, l0t3k wrote:
Why don't use just throw an exception yourself in your extension code?
I'm for errors as exceptions (obviously
"George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 10:04 AM, l0t3k wrote:
> Why don't use just throw an exception yourself in your extension code?
> I'm for errors as exceptions (obviously), but that is only necessary
> for legacy co
On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 10:04 AM, l0t3k wrote:
"Zeev Suraski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All in all, I would definitely not see errors-as-exceptions as a
pre-requisite for the beta. It's not an issue to be dealt with
lightly,
and we probably won't have time
"Zeev Suraski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> All in all, I would definitely not see errors-as-exceptions as a
> pre-requisite for the beta. It's not an issue to be dealt with lightly,
> and we probably won't have time to finalize it in the next few days that
we
> h
Hello Zeev,
Friday, June 20, 2003, 1:52:55 AM, you wrote:
ZS> At 23:07 19/06/2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
>>My understanding of the proposal is that it is errors as exceptions, not
>>warnings. errors are fatal in php4, so I don't see how it would change
>>the behavior of any code block wri
At 23:07 19/06/2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
My understanding of the proposal is that it is errors as exceptions, not
warnings. errors are fatal in php4, so I don't see how it would change
the behavior of any code block written for 4.
Except errors today have a 'contract' where PHP doesn't ha
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 03:53 PM, Shane Caraveo wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
try {
function_call_to_some_preexisting_library_that_doesnt_do_exceptions()
} catch(e) {
}
The auto-generated exceptions can be of type InternalException
extends Exception {}, and then the caller can decide
George Schlossnagle wrote:
try {
function_call_to_some_preexisting_library_that_doesnt_do_exceptions()
} catch(e) {
}
The auto-generated exceptions can be of type InternalException extends
Exception {}, and then the caller can decide whether or not they want to
comply with the old method (jus
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 02:57 PM, Shane Caraveo wrote:
I knew I should have kept my mouth shut...
Marcus Börger wrote:
Hello Shane,
just to repeat there weren't any exceptions in php4
Yes, you don't have to tell me the obvious.
and the things
that'll use exceptions in php5 will require f
I knew I should have kept my mouth shut...
Marcus Börger wrote:
Hello Shane,
just to repeat there weren't any exceptions in php4
Yes, you don't have to tell me the obvious.
and the things
that'll use exceptions in php5 will require full rewrite anyway. So i
don't see any problem.
try {
function
Hello Shane,
just to repeat there weren't any exceptions in php4 and the things
that'll use exceptions in php5 will require full rewrite anyway. So i
don't see any problem.
Thursday, June 19, 2003, 8:45:45 PM, you wrote:
SC> +0 While I really like the idea, auto-exceptions for errors would mess
+0 While I really like the idea, auto-exceptions for errors would mess
up library code that isn't written to use exceptions. If that problem
can be dealt with correctly, then I'd be +1. Otherwise, we need a new
error level.
Shane
Marcus Börger wrote:
Hello Sterling,
We need exceptions inste
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
> Sorry for being too late here.
>
> Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We also need to sort out the mbstring license mess. We cannot distribute
> > code that is under the LGPL and modified by us. The relevant clauses from
> > the LGPL:
>
Sorry for being too late here.
Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We also need to sort out the mbstring license mess. We cannot distribute
> code that is under the LGPL and modified by us. The relevant clauses from
> the LGPL:
> We do not meet a) and c) here. Specifically mbregex and
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 16:16, l0t3k wrote:
> "Marcus BRger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > We need exceptions instead of errors whenever a try/catch block is
> > entered or a constructor gets called. This is a very easy thing to
> > implement but we need a consensu
"Marcus BöRger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> We need exceptions instead of errors whenever a try/catch block is
> entered or a constructor gets called. This is a very easy thing to
> implement but we need a consensus before doing so.
>
add my +1 to the consensus. i
Hello Sterling,
We need exceptions instead of errors whenever a try/catch block is
entered or a constructor gets called. This is a very easy thing to
implement but we need a consensus before doing so.
regards
marcus
p.s.: And i'd still like to have final classes
Thursday, June 19, 2003, 2:15:06
Hello Rasmus,
isn't every single extension a "software library" used or incorporated
by PHP? Or shall i say incorporating with PHP? But that would make no
difference.
marcus
Thursday, June 19, 2003, 5:47:58 AM, you wrote:
RL> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>> I've added the mb stuf
Sure. PECL is a proof of that. ;-)
-Sterling
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 23:47, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > I've added the mb stuff to the list.
> >
> > Can the extension itself be considered a complete work? Therefore by
> > distributing the extension (und
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> I've added the mb stuff to the list.
>
> Can the extension itself be considered a complete work? Therefore by
> distributing the extension (under the LGPL) without modifications with
> PHP, we essentially keep the cancer isolated?
We would have to arg
I've added the mb stuff to the list.
Can the extension itself be considered a complete work? Therefore by
distributing the extension (under the LGPL) without modifications with
PHP, we essentially keep the cancer isolated?
-Sterling
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 22:12, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> We also n
We also need to sort out the mbstring license mess. We cannot distribute
code that is under the LGPL and modified by us. The relevant clauses from
the LGPL:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of
it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and di
Actually I'm working on the php5 version of ext/java extension :)
Moriyoshi
Sterling Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is what I can think of for a concrete todo before the beta...
>
> http://www.php.net/~sterling/php5/BETA
>
> any thing i missed? anything extraeneous?
--
PHP Inter
This is what I can think of for a concrete todo before the beta...
http://www.php.net/~sterling/php5/BETA
any thing i missed? anything extraeneous?
-Sterling
--
"Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs."
- Henry Ford
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mail
41 matches
Mail list logo
