JD>> This seems rather subjective. Also, if the Zend license will be
JD>> modified (and, to everyone on this list, that is still an _if_),
JD>> can't we revert back to the former, non-abstracted structure?
Well, if this would be know in a short timeframe (like, month-two) why not
wait? What reaso
At 22:24 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> i think we can just agree to disagree on this very issue. i
> do think that threaded server *do* matter - fullstop.
Uhm, being the guy that made PHP thread safe and implemented the first
multithreaded SAPI, I'd say I do too. It doesn't mean I
At 22:19 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> if i changed the Zend scanner to be able to read obscured
> (read encoded so that "joe internet" won't be able to reverse
> engineer that) i would have to publish my patch under the
> QPL, right? - that would make it even less "secure".
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:00:21PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 21:55 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:47:46PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >> Remember that while this is an impressive improvement, it's not all that
> >> useful in the vast majority of cases (it's
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:58:19PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > Could you explain to me how a completely optional change
> > which people need to enable explicitly can break PHP?
>
> Abstracting the scanner interface, and putting it into PHP, breaks the
> whole structure of PHP. Woul
At 22:19 9/7/2001, John Donagher wrote:
>This seems rather subjective. Also, if the Zend license will be modified (and,
>to everyone on this list, that is still an _if_), can't we revert back to the
>former, non-abstracted structure?
It's not very subjective. Like Andi said, there's not a single
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:11:46PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 21:48 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> > >besides that i can actually think of one or two usages for
> >> >a scanner in PHP which is not QPL. for exacle that reason the
> >> >your DOMXML sample is void - if we had a
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 21:49 9/7/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> >On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > > So have a patch on your directory as you published it, for those few for
> > > which the flex scanner doesn't work (and they *are* very few). Don't break
> > >
At 21:48 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >besides that i can actually think of one or two usages for
> > >a scanner in PHP which is not QPL. for exacle that reason the
> > >your DOMXML sample is void - if we had a better DOMXML under
> > >the same license we would use the bett
At 21:55 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:47:46PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > Remember that while this is an impressive improvement, it's not all that
> > useful in the vast majority of cases (it's especially useful with Apache
> > 2.0).
>
> IIS comes to mind -
At 21:49 9/7/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > So have a patch on your directory as you published it, for those few for
> > which the flex scanner doesn't work (and they *are* very few). Don't break
> > PHP.
>
> Could you explain to me how a completel
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:47:46PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Remember that while this is an impressive improvement, it's not all that
> useful in the vast majority of cases (it's especially useful with Apache
> 2.0).
IIS comes to mind - aolserver, fasttrack and maybe a few
more.
At 21:43 9/7/2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > I've been discussing the Zend Engine license with the 'leaders' of the
> > German PHP community on Thursday, and with members of the community and the
> > PHP Group on Friday. As mentioned there, the Zend Engine license is being
> > reviewed, and may c
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> So have a patch on your directory as you published it, for those few for
> which the flex scanner doesn't work (and they *are* very few). Don't break
> PHP.
Could you explain to me how a completely optional change
which people need to enable exp
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:43:43PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 21:38 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >as long as the (perception of the) Zend License stopps him
> >from submitting it to the ZendEngine he has no other choice
> >than to put it somewhere where he feels comfortable
> I've been discussing the Zend Engine license with the 'leaders' of the
> German PHP community on Thursday, and with members of the community and the
> PHP Group on Friday. As mentioned there, the Zend Engine license is being
> reviewed, and may change in the next few months. Especially in the
At 21:38 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> as long as the (perception of the) Zend License stopps him
> from submitting it to the ZendEngine he has no other choice
> than to put it somewhere where he feels comfortable with it.
Yes, but if he puts it in PHP, it also has to be comfort
So have a patch on your directory as you published it, for those few for
which the flex scanner doesn't work (and they *are* very few). Don't break
PHP.
Zeev
At 21:31 9/7/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > I've been discussing the Zend Engine license with the 'leaders' of the
> > German PHP com
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:27:17PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I consider it obvious why it makes no sense to abstract the
> scanner input
> of the engine, and I guess this is not very good - since some of you may
> not understand what it is about.
>
> The reason it makes no sense is very simp
> I've been discussing the Zend Engine license with the 'leaders' of the
> German PHP community on Thursday, and with members of the community and the
> PHP Group on Friday. As mentioned there, the Zend Engine license is being
> reviewed, and may change in the next few months.
Well, great.
I consider it obvious why it makes no sense to abstract the scanner input
of the engine, and I guess this is not very good - since some of you may
not understand what it is about.
The reason it makes no sense is very simple. The scanner Sascha wrote
doesn't behave in a different way than the
21 matches
Mail list logo
