On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Just the tip of the iceberg. There are a bunch of libraries that PHP can
talk to that are not threadsafe. It's going to take a while before
Apache2+PHP is going to be useful.
Maybe we need to make a list of libraries that
Just the tip of the iceberg. There are a bunch of libraries that PHP can
talk to that are not threadsafe. It's going to take a while before
Apache2+PHP is going to be useful.
Maybe we need to make a list of libraries that indicates which are thread
safe which are not.
What about the
* Ken Egervari wrote:
Like I said, I think its time PHP started moving forward and developed a new
vision for itself and the community.
This is one of the things I'm missing: in my opinion, PHP needs
to have a precise roadmap (like Mozilla has for example) what will
come for PHP 5, 5.1, 5.2
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 08:23:14AM +0200, Björn Schotte wrote :
* Ken Egervari wrote:
Like I said, I think its time PHP started moving forward and developed a new
vision for itself and the community.
This is one of the things I'm missing: in my opinion, PHP needs
to have a precise
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 07:32:47PM -0400, medvitz wrote:
The issue I have with PHP is that the people in charge have reasons for not
implementing performance enhancements in the base code. They charge a fair
amount for add-ons that increases performance drastically. I could
actually
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:40:49AM -, Jim Winstead wrote:
yes! the new build system that sascha introduced wasn't a move forward.
stig (and the large cast of others) working on building the pear
infrastructure aren't moving forward. rasmus is standing firm as he
looks at integrating the
Hello,
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, medvitz wrote:
I'm currently looking into an extension that would allow both persistent
variables, as well as persistent functions. At this point I'm still going
through the internals to determine the feasibility of such an extension.
I dont want to plug, but
Hi
In the last weeks, whenever i read some comments about php and what is bad
about it (besides all the good points :) ), domxml seems to be one of the
top issues... Personally I don't have much problems with this extension,
but missing docu and the API as a moving target, is something which
Hi,
why not replace GD by imagemagick which is better anyway?
Have you looked under the skirts of ImageMagick? It is one of the
poorest-written libraries I have seen.
Have you ever tried to do something productive with GD? It is one of
the poorest tools I have ever seen.
Seriously:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:46:56PM +0200, Daniel Lorch wrote:
why not replace GD by imagemagick which is better anyway?
Have you looked under the skirts of ImageMagick? It is one of the
poorest-written libraries I have seen.
Have you ever tried to do something productive with GD? It
* Daniel Lorch wrote:
Have you ever tried to do something productive with GD?
See http://www.aditus.nu/jpgraph/ (yes, Vagrant seems to
be the counterpart of JPGraph regarding Imlib compatibility
and general complexity, but I think JPGraph ist the better
one)
--
PHP-Support * realitätsnahe
Sure i do and it worked fine for all tests!?
marcus
At 00:02 13.04.2002, you wrote:
sniper Fri Apr 12 18:02:30 2002 EDT
Modified files:
/php4/ext/exif exif.c
Log:
Fix the build.
# Marcus, do you TEST build at all before you commit?!
Index: php4/ext/exif/exif.c
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:41:44PM +0200, Christian Stocker wrote:
top issues... Personally I don't have much problems with this extension,
but missing docu and the API as a moving target, is something which
worries a lot of people. But one of the weakest things about domxml is
IMHO that it
Hello there. I have been investigating the EXIF tags that Windows XP can add to files,
and have successfully identified five extra tags and their mappings to the fields on
the File|Properties...|Summary tab in Explorer (both simple and advanced views).
XP ignores the standard UserComment
Hi,
If you think that imagemagick is great, so don't you write an extention for it
yourself.
Other developers can deside on buildtime which image library they use.
Here are some additionals arguments:
Sounds nice but it will be a lot more work :-)
I will try to include them and verify it. But we are in RC3 so you will
find the
code not before 4.3.
marcus
At 14:42 13.04.2002, you wrote:
Hello there. I have been investigating the EXIF tags that Windows XP can
add to files, and have
I have, and so have all sorts of other people. Look at packages like
jpgraph. GD does enough. It is a clean and simple library. The ImageMagick
library is full of buffer overruns and crash bugs. Try drawing a big
circle, for example. The thing writes all over memory it isn't supposed
to. If it
Hi,
I checked the HTTP1.1 protocol and it says:
3.10 Language Tags
A language tag identifies a natural language spoken, written, or
otherwise conveyed by human beings for communication of information
to other human beings. Computer languages are explicitly excluded.
HTTP uses
At 16:02 13.04.2002, you wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 03:25:30PM +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
Sounds nice but it will be a lot more work :-)
I will try to include them and verify it. But we are in RC3 so you will
find the
code not before 4.3.
OK, thanks! :)
Maybe someone will build a
OK. I'm attaching a small (120x90) image I tagged. Just right-click on the image,
select Properties and look at the Summary tab. When you apply changes, it saves the
file and rewrites the headers.
I have tested this on JPEG images from a Sony digital camera, and have dumped the file
by hand
* Daniel Lorch wrote:
If GD was so great, why do products like typo3 and gallery rather
use imagemagick? Maybe because it's more feature-rich, supports 68
formats and can do ALOT of effects?
Yep, but I don't see a reason why GD should be thrown away.
--
PHP Development Mailing List
You've posted on this a couple of times. The thing with srm is that
they're set up as 'remote' functions. In order to get to a function, to
have to contact a (net necessarily) remote daemon. While I do agree that
this is cool and useful functionality, what I'm looking for is something
that
What I'm proposing (for the functions anywats) is that a list of files that
exists in the PHP.ini file get loaded. The functions from these files stay
resident in memory and get merged with the local function table prior to
script execution. In a way, it would function like extensions
Daniel,
it's all nice and good but there's no production version of
ext/imagick available. Until this isn't done, everything else
is waste of time ;)
- Markus
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 03:04:51PM +0200, Daniel Lorch wrote :
Hi,
If you think that imagemagick is great, so
This may be relevant to the discussion: http://pwee.sourceforge.net
On Saturday, April 13, 2002, at 11:29 AM, medvitz wrote:
You've posted on this a couple of times. The thing with srm is that
they're set up as 'remote' functions. In order to get to a function, to
have to contact a (net
Maybe you didn't tested ZTS mode?
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 02:39:36AM +0200, Marcus Börger wrote :
Sure i do and it worked fine for all tests!?
marcus
At 00:02 13.04.2002, you wrote:
sniper Fri Apr 12 18:02:30 2002 EDT
Modified files:
/php4/ext/exif exif.c
+1
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:48 AM
To: Daniel Lorch
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[3]: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!
I have, and so have all sorts of other people. Look at packages like
jpgraph. GD does enough. It
I don't really have an issue with the Zend people making money from their
products.
The concern I have is that they sell perfoamance enhancing products.
Because they are selling these, I worry that performance in the base Zend
engine will not be / is not a primary concern. I think that
I've been trying to upload a new version of the Log package, but I
keep running into the same problem. I'll be able to upload the new
package, but after a verify it, it redirects me back to the login
authentication page and asks me to re-enter my username and password.
I can't seem to break
Apologies; I sent this to the wrong list.
--
Jon Parise ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) . Information Technology (2001)
http://www.csh.rit.edu/~jon/ : Computer Science House Member
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
it's all nice and good but there's no production version of
ext/imagick available. Until this isn't done, everything else
is waste of time ;)
- Markus
I didn't know imagemagick's sources were of *THAT* bad quality.
Rasmus' arguments convinced me not to move to
Actually, I'd rather see a w3c DOM compliant module than a makeshift DOM,
which is what DOMXML seems to be. This would make a lot of things a lot
easier, not to mention standard
Medvitz
Lukas Schroeder wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:41:44PM +0200, Christian Stocker wrote:
top issues...
Is there a way to wrap existing c++ classes into a PHP class (via an
extension) ?
Medvitz
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 11:57:13AM -0400, medvitz wrote:
The concern I have is that they sell perfoamance enhancing products.
Because they are selling these, I worry that performance in the base Zend
engine will not be / is not a primary concern. I think that performance
should be a top
Hi,
Is there a way to wrap existing c++ classes into a PHP class (via an
extension) ?
This usually happens by writing an extension for PHP, although C is
the common language to do this:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/zend.php
-daniel
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
Can you use C++ however? I'm very interested in writing/using a standard
w3c binding for DOM XML
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Lorch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: medvitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C++ Class Wrapping
Can you use C++ however? I'm very interested in writing/using a standard
w3c binding for DOM XML
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Lorch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: medvitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C++ Class Wrapping
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, medvitz wrote:
Actually, I'd rather see a w3c DOM compliant module than a makeshift DOM,
which is what DOMXML seems to be. This would make a lot of things a lot
easier, not to mention standard
Then fix the DomXML extension we have now, but also think about Backward
We would still have the 'dom_*()' namespace if someone wants
to do a clean implementation from scratch.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 02:11:49AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, medvitz wrote:
Actually, I'd rather see a w3c DOM compliant module than a makeshift DOM,
I would like to do this if I have the time. As mentioned, i'm working on a
project that needs the latest version of PHP. If I could participate in
this to make it happen much sooner, I'd be happy to.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: medvitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
Hello,
I have a php extension and I was working on a website. I copyied/stole the
layout/code from qa.php.net. The extension is opensource and leaves the
copyright (Copyright © 1997 - 2002 PHP Group All rights reserved.) on the site.
Can I do this or does this break the liscence?
I like the
Hi,
I like the layout and i think php users/developers are useto the layout of the
php site thats why i want to be consitistant.
I asked the same thing some time ago. It turned out to be ok:
http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.mirrorsarticle=8320
Should we print a warning at the end of configure listing what libraries
you are trying to link with that we know are not thread safe?
- Stig
On Sat, 2002-04-13 at 07:00, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Just the tip of the iceberg. There are a bunch of libraries that PHP can
talk to that are not
Sure you can. Take a look at for example ext/dotnet/dotnet.cpp.
- Stig
On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 02:02, Ken Egervari wrote:
Can you use C++ however? I'm very interested in writing/using a standard
w3c binding for DOM XML
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Lorch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
44 matches
Mail list logo
