you already had the answer to this problem. do try to read the error message
properly.
a 'non object' is quite clear - if in doubt about what something is or something
should be use var_dump() or print_r() to output the variable in question (e.g.
$DB, which
you would have seen was NULL).
now
On 30/01/2008, Per Jessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
philip wrote:
Hi everyone,
I need assistance using sendmail or mail() as my web hosting service
does not allow opening sockets.
This is the code I use:
Philip, please state what sort of problems you are having. mail() and
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 7:27 PM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I'd use a static method in this instance.
thats what i recommended.
If you need to create
an instance of the class you can do so in the static method and that way it
will get destroyed when the function is
Stut schreef:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 7:27 PM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I'd use a static method in this instance.
thats what i recommended.
If you need to create
an instance of the class you can do so in the static method and that
way it
will get destroyed when
Janet N schreef:
Hi there,
I have two forms on the same php page. Both forms has php embeded inside
html with it's own submit button.
How do I keep the second form from not disappearing when I click submit on
the first form? My issue is that when I click the submit button from the
first
form
Jochem Maas wrote:
Stut schreef:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 7:27 PM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I'd use a static method in this instance.
thats what i recommended.
If you need to create
an instance of the class you can do so in the static method and that
way it
Stut schreef:
Jochem Maas wrote:
Stut schreef:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 7:27 PM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I'd use a static method in this instance.
thats what i recommended.
If you need to create
an instance of the class you can do so in the static method and
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Actually, I don't think so. I believe constructors return void, while
the 'new' keyword returns a copy of the object.
im pretty sure constructors return an object instance:
php class Test { function __construct() {} }
php var_dump(new Test());
object(Test)#1 (0) {
}
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
all,
i was playing around w/ some object serialization tonight during
further exploration of spl and i stumbled on what appears to be a
bug in the behavior of the __sleep() magic method.
here is the pertinent documentation on the method
..is supposed to return an array
Anup Shukla schreef:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Actually, I don't think so. I believe constructors return void, while
the 'new' keyword returns a copy of the object.
im pretty sure constructors return an object instance:
php class Test { function __construct() {} }
php var_dump(new Test());
On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 3:53 PM, Jason Pruim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did as you suggested, and I think I found the reason... I included
info for the doctype, and some files that are on all my pages...
Once I comment out those lines it works just
On Jan 29, 2008 3:29 PM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 3:19 PM, nihilism machine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, trying to write my first php5 class. This is my first project
using all OOP PHP5.2.5.
I want to create a config class, which is extended by a connection
On Jan 30, 2008 5:56 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
You posted a singleton pattern.
no, what i posted was a simple factory pattern.
if you invoke it twice there will be 2 instances of Test in memory,
eg. not singleton.
$a = Test::getInstance();
$b = Test::getInstance();
On Jan 30, 2008 8:40 AM, Eric Butera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 3:29 PM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still pimping singleton, huh? :)
hell yeah :)
i looked at the registry classes you pointed out.
you know what funny about the one in solar?
they refer to the same
We need PHP/LAMP Developers and Programmers in FL, MD, VA, NY, DC, CA, MA
World NetMedia is a world class leader in the development of multimedia
internet sites. We are seeking highly motivated individuals who eat, breath,
and love the work they do. If you like working in a fun, laid-back,
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:46 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Actually no, I mean I would *just* use a static method. If there is no
reason to instantiate an object, why would you? http://stut.net/
you realize you are
On Jan 30, 2008 10:46 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Actually no, I mean I would *just* use a static method. If there is no
reason to instantiate an object, why would you? http://stut.net/
you realize you are instantiating an class in the code you posted, right?
from
On Jan 30, 2008 9:57 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 8:40 AM, Eric Butera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 3:29 PM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still pimping singleton, huh? :)
hell yeah :)
i looked at the registry classes you pointed
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
It's fairly likely that I'd actually just use a static method here,
both your and my code use static methods. it sounds to me like you are
using the term 'static method' to mean a static method that has a variable
with a reference to an instance of the class that it is
Stut wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:53 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
I never said I wasn't creating
an instance in the example I posted.
then what exactly did you mean by this?
Actually no, I mean I would *just*
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:53 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
I never said I wasn't creating
an instance in the example I posted.
then what exactly did you mean by this?
Actually no, I mean I would *just* use a static
On Jan 30, 2008 10:35 AM, Eric Butera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only gripe I have about the registry pattern is the lack of code
completion in PDT. ;)
heh. does that still blowup when you try to open a file w/ an interface
definition?
I love php patterns, but it seems to sort of be
On Jan 30, 2008 10:53 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
I never said I wasn't creating
an instance in the example I posted.
then what exactly did you mean by this?
Actually no, I mean I would *just* use a static method. If there is no
reason to instantiate an object, why
Stut wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:53 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
I never said I wasn't creating
an instance in the example I posted.
then what exactly did you mean by this?
Actually no, I mean I would *just*
On Jan 30, 2008 11:21 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling a static method
does not create an instance of the class.
there you go again; calling a static method does create an instance of
the class if you call new inside of it :P
-nathan
Jim Lucas wrote:
Stut wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:53 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
I never said I wasn't creating
an instance in the example I posted.
then what exactly did you mean by this?
Actually no, I mean
On Jan 30, 2008 10:13 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I love php patterns, but it seems to sort of be dead for years now.
me too; ya, it is sort of dead, sad, but its still worth a look to people
getting
there feet wet w/ patterns, and occasionally as a point of reference for
On Jan 30, 2008 11:31 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would *just* use a static method
*just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just*
No instance. None. Grrr.
here is a mod of the code you posted w/ a var_dump() of the
local variable $o;
?php
class Test {
public
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 11:21 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling a static method
does not create an instance of the class.
there you go again; calling a static method does create an instance of
the class if you call new inside of it :P
On Jan 30, 2008 11:38 AM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If list traffic is any sign, PHP is indeed slowing down from the new
peeps wanting to learn it perspective:
http://marc.info/?l=php-generalw=2
interesting..
http://marc.info/?l=php-generalw=2I would assume it's because there
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 11:31 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would *just* use a static method
*just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just*
No instance. None. Grrr.
here is a mod of the code you posted w/ a var_dump()
On Jan 30, 2008 11:43 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 11:38 AM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If list traffic is any sign, PHP is indeed slowing down from the new
peeps wanting to learn it perspective:
http://marc.info/?l=php-generalw=2
interesting..
hello everyone,
This is important,I am trying to post some spanish characters from a form on
a page and i am comparing those spanish characters to the same letters on
the same page but on strcmp the return is not zero.I don't know what is
wrong some problem with the post method i guess or
On Jan 30, 2008 12:07 PM, greenCountry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello everyone,
This is important,I am trying to post some spanish characters from a form on
a page and i am comparing those spanish characters to the same letters on
the same page but on strcmp the return is not zero.I don't
On Jan 30, 2008 11:58 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I'm going to have to assume you really are as stupid as you seem. If
I need to provide an example to demonstrate what I meant I will, but I
feel I made it quite clear that my comment regarding what *I* would do
did not in any way
On Jan 30, 2008 11:13 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont think Registry::getInstance() is really that much overhead;
In my initial tests I found that static methods accessing $GLOBALS
directly was much faster than using an instance and working on it
tucked away in a static
Stut wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 11:31 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would *just* use a static method
*just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just*
No instance. None. Grrr.
here is a mod of the code you posted w/
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 11:58 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I'm going to have to assume you really are as stupid as you seem. If
I need to provide an example to demonstrate what I meant I will, but I
feel I made it quite clear that my
Indeed. Now, the place where you sleep... is it guarded?
well it is, but..
i probly misunderstood some implication in the directions of
my virtual fortress and therefore, probly not as well a i suspect ;)
-nathan
On Jan 30, 2008 10:43 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would assume it's because there are much more interesting advances
in web development technology to focus on elsewhere.
such as ?
Ruby 1.9, Ruby on Rails 2, Perl6/Parrot.
Parrot is particularly interesting, especially if
2008. 01. 30, szerda keltezéssel 11.45-kor Greg Donald ezt írta:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:43 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would assume it's because there are much more interesting advances
in web development technology to focus on elsewhere.
such as ?
Ruby 1.9, Ruby on Rails
On Jan 30, 2008 12:45 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:43 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would assume it's because there are much more interesting advances
in web development technology to focus on elsewhere.
such as ?
Ruby 1.9, Ruby on Rails
Jim Lucas wrote:
Stut wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 11:31 AM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would *just* use a static method
*just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just* *just*
No instance. None. Grrr.
here is a mod of the
On Jan 30, 2008 11:52 AM, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
oh the Ruby and Rails stuff here it comes again... I really don't see
why is it a 'more interesting advance in web development technology'...
and what's more important for me, I really don't like it ;)
It's opinionated software
Hello,
I am sorry if this is appropriate but does anyone know php based, open
source solution that would enable me to put a system handling
inventory (books, booklets). I work for a charity and we are archiving
our old products by making a digital archive. So far we have been
doing it in Excel
2008. 01. 30, szerda keltezéssel 12.03-kor Greg Donald ezt írta:
On Jan 30, 2008 11:52 AM, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
oh the Ruby and Rails stuff here it comes again... I really don't see
why is it a 'more interesting advance in web development technology'...
and what's more
On Jan 30, 2008 11:56 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i love how the ruby crew has 1 framework, whereas php has scads.
Ruby has 7 frameworks that I know of: Nitro, IOWA, Ramaze, Cerise,
Ruby on Rails, Merb and Camping.
http://www.nitroproject.org/
http://enigo.com/projects/iowa/
On Jan 30, 2008 12:15 PM, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's opinionated software and is certainly not for everyone.
ok it's not for everyone, certainly not for me. but what is it from your
point of view that makes it a 'more interesting advance'?
1) Test driven development is
check for code / systems on
www.hotscripts.com
http://sourceforge.net
hth
bastien Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:14:57 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
php-general@lists.php.net Subject: [PHP] Help looking for inventory software
Hello, I am sorry if this is appropriate but does anyone know
On Jan 30, 2008 1:29 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has 7 frameworks that I know of: Nitro, IOWA, Ramaze, Cerise,
Ruby on Rails, Merb and Camping.
http://www.nitroproject.org/
http://enigo.com/projects/iowa/
http://ramaze.net/
http://cerise.rubyforge.org/
On Jan 30, 2008 12:40 PM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just pointing out that the rails guys dont have much wiggle room.
surely, youre familiar w/ this post:
http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2007/09/7_reasons_i_switched_back_to_p_1.html
One article from one developer means what
On Jan 30, 2008 2:38 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you like Java then stick with PHP as that's where the syntax is
clearly headed:
http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/
ive been studying spl a lot recently. actually, last night
i was benching it against foreach over standard
On Jan 30, 2008 1:36 PM, Eric Butera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your post. Competition is a good thing.
I agree. PHP is the reason we're not all still working out of a cgi-bin.
Have you looked at the PHPUnit code coverage reports? Of course it
isn't built in like you say, which
On Jan 30, 2008 2:33 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 12:40 PM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just pointing out that the rails guys dont have much wiggle room.
surely, youre familiar w/ this post:
On Jan 30, 2008 12:40 PM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
java is awesome, it just hasnt worked out for me career wise.
If you like Java then stick with PHP as that's where the syntax is
clearly headed:
http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/
--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
--
PHP
On Jan 30, 2008 2:01 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 12:15 PM, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's opinionated software and is certainly not for everyone.
ok it's not for everyone, certainly not for me. but what is it from your
point of view that makes it
On Jan 30, 2008 2:55 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you only need to test data integrity then it seems good enough. I
would argue that being able to test xhr requests is a basic
requirement at this stage in web development.
how exactly do you test an xhr request?
my suspicion is
On 1/30/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 2:38 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you like Java then stick with PHP as that's where the syntax is
clearly headed:
http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/
ive been studying spl a lot recently. actually, last
On 1/30/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 2:55 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you only need to test data integrity then it seems good enough. I
would argue that being able to test xhr requests is a basic
requirement at this stage in web development.
On Jan 30, 2008 3:11 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think your perception is correct. But Perl is very powerful too,
and not so many people use it for new web development either.. with
list serve traffic being my reference.
SPL's main drawback for me personally is carpal tunnel
On Jan 30, 2008 3:22 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An xhr request needs to be tested to see if your javascript fired when
expected and equally important what was sent back, and did what was
sent back land in the DOM where you expected it to. Rails provides
that and much more.
ill
On Jan 30, 2008 3:34 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/30/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what id like to know, since you seem to know so much about the ruby on
rails framework,
is, what sort of debugging support is there? this is a weak spot in
php to be sure. ive
On Jan 30, 2008 4:08 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/30/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
php has an interactive shell; php -a.
therein you have access to anything in the language your
include path, or the local disc.
You obviously have a very different understanding
On 1/30/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what id like to know, since you seem to know so much about the ruby on
rails framework,
is, what sort of debugging support is there? this is a weak spot in
php to be sure. ive
tried multiple clients w/ xdebug w/ marginal success at this
On 1/30/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
php has an interactive shell; php -a.
therein you have access to anything in the language your
include path, or the local disc.
You obviously have a very different understanding of the word interactive.
`php -a` seems pretty broken to me:
On 1/30/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
up arrow works just fine. history is gone if it crashes, but
if you exit gracefully, eg. with quit, then the history will be there.
maybe youre using debian or some other silly os; i run gentoo
Gentoo is a damn fun distro I must admit.. but
On 2008-01-30 18:29:57 Greg Donald wrote:
-snip-
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=alllang=all
That benchmark doesn't include Ruby 1.9.
Now that the benchmarks game homepage
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
includes an A to Z list of language implementations you
On Wed, January 30, 2008 12:58 am, Dax Solomon Umaming wrote:
Hi;
I've tried Googling this out but failed to search for an answer to
this, so
I'm posting to this list. I'd like to know if there's a way to get the
sum
this results:
// Results
Individual Daily Consumption
//AccountNo :
Hello,
on 01/30/2008 01:52 PM PHP Employer said the following:
We need PHP/LAMP Developers and Programmers in FL, MD, VA, NY, DC, CA, MA
World NetMedia is a world class leader in the development of multimedia
internet sites. We are seeking highly motivated individuals who eat, breath,
On Wed, January 30, 2008 10:43 am, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 11:38 AM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If list traffic is any sign, PHP is indeed slowing down from the
new
peeps wanting to learn it perspective:
http://marc.info/?l=php-generalw=2
interesting..
Perhaps
On Wed, January 30, 2008 9:53 am, Stut wrote:
The forcing it out of scope was the crux of my point. However, if
Jochem is right then it's kinda pointless with the current
implementation of the GC, but may become relevant in the new GC.
I dunno about the OOP instances getting GC'ed, but PHP
On Tue, January 29, 2008 12:45 pm, Barney Tramble wrote:
I have a script that I am trying to figure out to allow a remote file
to
be sent to a client's browser. It works ok for small files, but it
keeps
timing out for large files. I don't think it should even take as long
as
it does (i.e.
I dunno about the OOP instances getting GC'ed, but PHP *definitely*
reclaims memory from arrays and strings as they go out of scope,
usually.
Does anyone else find that funny? :)
It definitely does it ... usually ;)
--
Postgresql php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/
--
PHP General
On Wed, January 30, 2008 1:33 pm, Greg Donald wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 12:40 PM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just pointing out that the rails guys dont have much wiggle room.
surely, youre familiar w/ this post:
I believe the constructor returns the object created, with no chance
in userland code of altering that fact, over-riding the return value,
or any other jiggery-pokery to that effect.
New causes the constructor to be called in the first place, and that's
about it.
The assignment to a variable is
On Wed, January 30, 2008 6:19 pm, Chris wrote:
I dunno about the OOP instances getting GC'ed, but PHP *definitely*
reclaims memory from arrays and strings as they go out of scope,
usually.
Does anyone else find that funny? :)
It definitely does it ... usually ;)
Ah well.
It definitely
Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, January 30, 2008 6:19 pm, Chris wrote:
I dunno about the OOP instances getting GC'ed, but PHP *definitely*
reclaims memory from arrays and strings as they go out of scope,
usually.
Does anyone else find that funny? :)
It definitely does it ... usually ;)
Ah
Richard Lynch schreef:
I believe the constructor returns the object created, with no chance
in userland code of altering that fact, over-riding the return value,
or any other jiggery-pokery to that effect.
New causes the constructor to be called in the first place, and that's
about it.
The
On Tue, January 29, 2008 1:39 pm, Jason Pruim wrote:
Okay, so I checked everything I can think of, and it's still
downloading it as an application which means it's downloading the
entire website instead of just the data from the database... Anyone
have any idea what to check?
Can you explain
On Wed, January 30, 2008 1:44 pm, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
when you said earlier that people arent interested in learning
php, this is something i immediately thought of. primarily
because spl debuted in php 5.0 and practically nobody is
using it (which could just be my skewed perception) when it
On Tue, January 29, 2008 9:58 am, John Papas wrote:
I'm using file() to get the contents of a remote page in my script but
I cannot find any information regarding how I could *gracefully*
handle a broken network connection or even a time-out (slow
connection).
Is there a way?
---
On Tue, January 29, 2008 9:21 am, Mike Potter wrote:
There is JavaScript out there, to make a page break out of frames if
someone else has your page in a frame of theirs.
Is it possible to do this with PHP or is that the wrong side of
Server/Client-side operations?
PHP is the wrong side of
On Tue, January 29, 2008 10:32 am, Per Jessen wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
The only remedy agaonst remote linking is to embed some kind of
expiration in the link that accesses the document.
Wouldn't a check of the REFERER field be enough to disable most remote
links? (I know it is
The only remedy agaonst remote linking is to embed some kind of
expiration in the link that accesses the document.
Wouldn't a check of the REFERER field be enough to disable most remote
links? (I know it is easily forged.)
Normal users also use browsers which choose not to send
Greg Donald schreef:
On Jan 30, 2008 1:36 PM, Eric Butera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your post. Competition is a good thing.
I agree. PHP is the reason we're not all still working out of a cgi-bin.
Have you looked at the PHPUnit code coverage reports? Of course it
isn't built in
On Mon, January 28, 2008 3:56 pm, Ravi Menon wrote:
1) curl:
.
.
curl_setopt( $handle, CURLOPT_TIMEOUT, 1 );
.
.
$resp = curl_exec($handle)
2) sockets:
stream_set_timeout( $sock, 1);
This is only for AFTER you've already opened up the socket.
If you want a timeout on the opening,
is it possible to use input type=hidden for signkey form and put it in
the register form before the submit button? I'm not sure but
is it possible to use hidden to make this work?
Thanks.
On Jan 30, 2008 3:16 AM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Janet N schreef:
Hi there,
I have two
Your first line of PHP code does not execute until PHP finishes
accepting the whole file...
On Mon, January 28, 2008 2:34 pm, Mr Webber wrote:
This is the info available to upload scripts
I have not done this, but am inspired to do it now. My design is to
develop
my own meter by compare
Janet N schreef:
is it possible to use input type=hidden for signkey form and put it in
the register form before the submit button? I'm not sure but
is it possible to use hidden to make this work?
what are you trying to do? do you want to have people fill in both forms
at once then process
On Tue, January 29, 2008 10:55 am, Per Jessen wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Referer value is completely worthless. Many people completely
disable
it-- such as myself :)
But most people probably don't - 'coz most don't know how to edit e.g.
the firefox config.
What is the purpose of
On Tue, January 29, 2008 12:48 pm, Per Jessen wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Actually, now you made me think on it... the primary reason I
disable
referrer logging is because it will also pass along lovely
information
such as any session ID embedded in the URL. So if you happen to get
on
a
it aint PHP ... but I've just fall in love with this: http://www.capify.org/
which won't help if any of the servers in question are windows boxes unless you
can install cygwin on there (I'm guessing that would allow it to work). although
from reading your post I gather you have to perform the
On Mon, January 28, 2008 12:37 pm, Per Jessen wrote:
Richard Lynch wrote:
On Sat, January 26, 2008 3:45 am, Per Jessen wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Back on the mysql side of things, try using geometry columns rather
than numerical primary keys, with spatial indexes.. it's a MASSIVE
performance
On Mon, January 28, 2008 2:52 pm, Per Jessen wrote:
True again. However, I was commenting on your assertion that Process
forking has EVERYTHING to do with thread safety, which I will stay is
wrong. When you fork another process, you don't need to worry about
whether your code is thread-safe
No, but we will. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Manuel Lemos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 6:44 PM
To: PHP Employer
Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] We need PHP/LAMP Developers and Programmers in FL, MD,
VA,NY, DC, CA, MA
Hello,
Hi Jochem,
Thanks for the prompt response. No I do not want people to fill in both
forms at once.
I actually have a three step process. I simplified it to two because if I
can get two steps to work, I should be good to go. Each step depends on the
preceding step having completed successfully.
On Jan 30, 2008 8:21 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg's my hero of the day - even if he has been banging the Ruby drum on
the PHP Stage half the night ;-)
greg does seem to know a crap-ton about ruby, and gentoo even ;)
one thing I would offer as a solution to rolling out code to
On Jan 30, 2008 7:58 PM, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't use SPL because it makes my head spin to read it, and I never
ever try to do something as silly as iterate over a *LARGE* array in
end-user pages.
are there pages where you iterate over the same 'small' array more than
Nathan Nobbe schreef:
On Jan 30, 2008 8:21 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg's my hero of the day - even if he has been banging the Ruby drum on
the PHP Stage half the night ;-)
greg does seem to know a crap-ton about ruby, and gentoo even ;)
one thing I would offer as a
On Jan 30, 2008 10:58 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
besides being a nightmare, portage doesn't answer the question of rolling out
stuff
to multiple machines simultaneously.
portage is one of the most elegant software distribution mechanisms
ever created.
and you dont have to have a
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
