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 reason
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
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. We
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 simple.
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
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
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
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 with
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
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 completely
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 21:48 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 better one.
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
PHP.
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 better
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 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. Would it
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
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.
Well
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
