[Walter Franzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> [sorry, my English is bad]
>
> Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Why? Whatever extension you use on your box, put them in the php.ini.
> > dl() is never a better option.
> >
> > Zeev
>
> An example not solvable using php.ini:
>
>
At 11:37 28-08-01, Walter Franzini wrote:
>[sorry, my English is bad]
>
>Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>[...]
>
> > Why? Whatever extension you use on your box, put them in the php.ini.
> > dl() is never a better option.
> >
> > Zeev
>
>An example not solvable using php.ini:
>
>At S
At 09:39 AM 8/8/2001 +0200, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken
>wrote:
> > [Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > > >Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
> > > >tec
At 10:39 08-08-01, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken
>wrote:
> > [Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > > >Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
> > > >technical ch
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken
wrote:
> [Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > >Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
> > >technical challenges in doing JIT module initialization?
> >
> >
[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> >Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
> >technical challenges in doing JIT module initialization?
>
> It's not much of a challenge really. If we decide it should be done,
> it can
At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
>Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
>technical challenges in doing JIT module initialization?
It's not much of a challenge really. If we decide it should be done, it
can be done...
Zeev
--
PHP Development Mailing
[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> At 19:40 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> >On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > > At 07:10 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > > > What if you use 50 different shared extensions, for different
> > > > scripts on the same box? Should you l
I disagree in two levels. First, I think that saying "We can't protect
people from their stupidity, so let's lift all bars" is just plain wrong
and a bad approach in a real world situation. Sure, it's true, but we can
definitely reduce the risks involved in common mistakes that people
make.
At 23:57 06-08-01, Sander Steffann wrote:
>Hi,
>
> > >Deprecate dl()? I think it's one of the most useful functions... :)
> >
> > How so? I can understand that people get used to it, but it's really
> > bad. extensions should be loaded in the php.ini file. There's really no
> > good reason for
> In a few words:
> For a webserver: ban dl()
> For generic scripting: keep dl()
What's really the point of protecting people from their stupidity. If
you're going to keep it in the generic scripting engine (which I think has
lots of value), why not keep it in the webserver engine as well. There
Hi,
> >Deprecate dl()? I think it's one of the most useful functions... :)
>
> How so? I can understand that people get used to it, but it's really
> bad. extensions should be loaded in the php.ini file. There's really no
> good reason for using dl() over the php.ini method.
I agree with you
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I think the disk weights about the same regardless of the data inside it
> :)
Yes, but 50 extensions will consume more memory than 1.
-Andrei
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented
six feet downward and covered with dir
At 19:45 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > Nothing measurable. That was actually measured (changing PHP to
> initialize
> > extensions just-in-time, in case they're actually being used) - and it
> > turned out it wasn't giving any noticeable perform
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Nothing measurable. That was actually measured (changing PHP to initialize
> extensions just-in-time, in case they're actually being used) - and it
> turned out it wasn't giving any noticeable performance gain.
>
> If there were a thousand extensions,
At 19:40 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > At 07:10 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > > What if you use 50 different shared extensions, for different
> > > scripts on the same box? Should you load them all in each time?
> > > I don't
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 07:10 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > What if you use 50 different shared extensions, for different
> > scripts on the same box? Should you load them all in each time?
> > I don't think so...
>
> Other than your phobia, there's no r
At 07:10 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> What if you use 50 different shared extensions, for different
> scripts on the same box? Should you load them all in each time?
> I don't think so...
Other than your phobia, there's no real reason not to do it :)
Zeev
--
PHP Developmen
At 06:30 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > > How so? I can understand that people get used to it, but it's really
> > > bad. extensions should be loaded in the php.ini file. There's really no
> > > g
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> don't think there's an API for that. we would have to add the
> MODULE_NUMBER to the class-entry and then (when unloading the
> module) also destroy the classes that that module defined. i
> think constants and functions already do thi
See my letter to Andrei.
I've yet to see an ISP that (knowingly) allows users to load extensions,
and wouldn't agree to add them to the php.ini file.
This isn't a case of me saying "users don't need X" or "95.6% of the
scripts out there don't need Y". This is me saying that dl() is *bad*,
ev
[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
> Please don't just say it's useful, please say why :)
> dl() has absolutely nothing over loading in php.ini, and has many drawbacks.
Please allow me to coin a new term: "Zeev-ism". Zeev-isms are of the
form "users don't need X" or "95.6% of the scripts out
Please don't just say it's useful, please say why :)
dl() has absolutely nothing over loading in php.ini, and has many drawbacks.
Zeev
At 17:55 06/08/2001, Andy wrote:
>I disagree, is there any way dl() can be fixed,
>because it is a useful function...
>
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I disagree, is there any way dl() can be fixed,
because it is a useful function...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 17:49 06/08/2001, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> >[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it.
> > > The
At 17:49 06/08/2001, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
>[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it.
> > The way it was before - it worked in most cases (assuming you never
> > tried to use a class before you dl() the corresponding extension)
[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it.
> The way it was before - it worked in most cases (assuming you never
> tried to use a class before you dl() the corresponding extension), but
> could result in crashes in other cases.
>
> I
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> i don't think this is crucial for the gtk stuff as this
> problem only arises once the request ends _and_ a new request
> starts. the shutdown in the engine has been changed to only
> destruct classes (from the end of the list) until t
27 matches
Mail list logo