On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 04:42:38PM -0400, Al Baker wrote :
I want to use the dom-xml extension in a production environment, is the
dom-xml memory leak significant, ie will the whole machine run out of
available memory or ?
You mean this built in feature that domxml leaks a few bytes
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 04:42:38PM -0400, Al Baker wrote :
I want to use the dom-xml extension in a production environment, is the
dom-xml memory leak significant, ie will the whole machine run out of
available memory or ?
You mean this
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 12:07:25AM +0200, Christian Stocker wrote :
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 04:42:38PM -0400, Al Baker wrote :
I want to use the dom-xml extension in a production environment, is the
dom-xml memory leak significant, ie will the
Hello,
can you file a change/feature request for this @ bugs.php.net ?
Derick
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Brent R. Matzelle wrote:
I could not help but notice that all DOM XML calls use an
underscore-based convention:
i.e.
$mynode-append_child($achild);
I am no language lawyer but if you
Hi,
not giong to happen. It's a PHP convention to use underscores
to separate words (this was discussed ~ half a year ago
afaik).
- Markus
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:49:50PM -0700, Brent R. Matzelle wrote :
I could not help but notice that all DOM XML calls use an
--- Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not giong to happen. It's a PHP convention to use underscores
to separate words (this was discussed ~ half a year ago
afaik).
I realize that this is a PHP convention, but I do not think that it
is up to PHP developers to change published
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Brent R. Matzelle wrote:
--- Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not giong to happen. It's a PHP convention to use underscores
to separate words (this was discussed ~ half a year ago
afaik).
I realize that this is a PHP convention, but I do not
Hi,
btw, not my personal opinion :) I just wanted to let you know
this was discussed so you can search the archives for it.
Btw, first you said 'w3c convention' now it's a standard?
anyway
- Markus
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:27:40PM -0700, Brent R. Matzelle wrote :
Why don't we just add alias... so it will be BC and
so we don't get shunned on by people like that.
- Brad
--- Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
btw, not my personal opinion :) I just wanted to let you know
this was discussed so you can search the archives for it.
--- brad lafountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't we just add alias... so it will be BC and
so we don't get shunned on by people like that.
That would fit the bill nicely.
Brent
__
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
Hi,
I fail to see the advante. Is it only that 'it looks like
what the w3c recommends' and 'so users already used to the
api have it easier' or did I miss something else?
- Markus
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:47:22PM -0700, Brent R. Matzelle wrote :
--- brad lafountain
--- Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
btw, not my personal opinion :) I just wanted to let you know
this was discussed so you can search the archives for it.
Understood ;)
Btw, first you said 'w3c convention' now it's a standard?
anyway
Again, I'm no
Yeah thats pretty much it. It does make it eaiser for people using
dom in another lanugage to pick it up in php if it did conform to
the standard. Expecially how we are trying to conform the functions
to begin with. Instead of having append_child... why not add_child..
- We started conforming
Hi
Yeah thats pretty much it. It does make it eaiser for people using
dom in another lanugage to pick it up in php if it did conform to
the standard. Expecially how we are trying to conform the functions
to begin with. Instead of having append_child... why not add_child..
'cause
--- Christian Stocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Yeah thats pretty much it. It does make it eaiser for people using
dom in another lanugage to pick it up in php if it did conform to
the standard. Expecially how we are trying to conform the functions
to begin with. Instead of having
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:57:52 +0100
Jaroslaw Kolakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think about adding a function domxml_node_replace_node(),
that would be a wrapper for xmlReplaceNode() function from libxml?
As far as I am concerned, there is no easy way to replace a node using
Hello,
you can safely ignore this... bad build so it seems.
Derick
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Derick Rethans wrote:
Starting PHP (4.1.0 from www.php.net/~zeev/php-4.1.0.tar.gz) crashed with
the following backtrace:
0x08104876 in zend_register_functions (functions=0x4,
Hello,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, £ukasz Kalita wrote:
Could someone tell me WHEN DOM XML will be
cleared out of those annoying memory leak bugs that
make this great tool generally unsuable on any production
server?
When sombody has enough free time to do that, or when somebody else pays a
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 08:36:54PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote :
Hello,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, £ukasz Kalita wrote:
Could someone tell me WHEN DOM XML will be
cleared out of those annoying memory leak bugs that
make this great tool generally unsuable on any production
server?
When
I am using php 4.0.6 distribution. I need to use libxslt library, so I've
written a patch for DOM XML extension. Besides I've added some functions
More info at http://rainbow.mimuw.edu.pl/~jkolakow/domxml/
Regards,
Jarek
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To
I would like to roll it back to 4.0.6 until the current version gets fixed.
However, I have not used either of them so that's why I'm waiting for
enough feedback from people who actually use it.
Andi
At 03:12 PM 6/28/2001 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
Hello,
as I about to write PHP scripts
At 02:30 PM 6/27/2001 -0400, Colin Viebrock wrote:
For 4.0.6 I rolled back the DOM/XML changes. It seems as if the current
upgrade isn't being fixed. Maybe we should revert it back to what it was
in 4.0.6 until it gets a thorough make over?
You love to make me work, huh? :)
Seriously, if
At 01:14 PM 6/29/2001 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Well everyone would like to see it fixed but no one is fixing it. So we are
better of rolling back. It means we will end up with one version and not
three because we will roll back to 4.0.6.
I
For 4.0.6 I rolled back the DOM/XML changes. It seems as if the current
upgrade isn't being fixed. Maybe we should revert it back to what it was
in 4.0.6 until it gets a thorough make over?
You love to make me work, huh? :)
Seriously, if we stick with the 4.0.6 version, that's fine.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andi
Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
For 4.0.6 I rolled back the DOM/XML changes. It seems as if the current
upgrade isn't being fixed. Maybe we should revert it back to what it
was in 4.0.6 until it gets a thorough make over?
yes, please :=)
chregu,
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hey,
For 4.0.6 I rolled back the DOM/XML changes. It seems as if the current
upgrade isn't being fixed. Maybe we should revert it back to what it was
in 4.0.6 until it gets a thorough make over?
Might not be a bad idea. The upgrade Ulf put in
At 09:00 AM 6/27/2001 +0200, Christian Stocker wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andi
Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
For 4.0.6 I rolled back the DOM/XML changes. It seems as if the current
upgrade isn't being fixed. Maybe we should revert it back to what it
was in 4.0.6 until
27 matches
Mail list logo
