On Fri, October 14, 2005 5:18 pm, GamblerZG wrote:
>>>The second one is by using two
>>>different
>>>apache modules. It *does not break anything*, but it's a pain to
>>>setup.
>>>
>>>Judging sheerly by functionality and compatibility the second ways
>>> is
>>>better.
>>>
>>>However, judging from wh
The second one is by using two
different
apache modules. It *does not break anything*, but it's a pain to
setup.
Judging sheerly by functionality and compatibility the second ways is
better.
However, judging from what I know about PHP, nobody tries to make that
way easier, because everybody assu
On Thu, October 13, 2005 7:07 pm, GamblerZG wrote:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
> >> PHP developers assume that PHP5 will be frequently used to parse
> PHP4
> >> scripts. Why?
> > Because that's how the real world works.
>
> "The real world" works that way because, as you just said, installing
> 2
> p
Hi,
Friday, October 14, 2005, 1:07:04 AM, you wrote:
> Let me get it straight. There are two ways of running PHP four and
> five on one server. First one is by using five's compatibility mode,
> and it breaks some of the old scripts. The second one is by using
> two different apache modules. It *
Richard Lynch wrote:
>> PHP developers assume that PHP5 will be frequently used to parse PHP4
>> scripts. Why?
> Because that's how the real world works.
"The real world" works that way because, as you just said, installing 2
php modules side by side is a "great deal of system administration".
On Wed, October 12, 2005 4:31 pm, GamblerZG wrote:
> Since nobody ansvered the real question my previous message, I will
> re-phrase it.
>
> PHP developers assume that PHP5 will be frequently used to parse PHP4
> scripts. Why?
Because that's how the real world works.
Somebody installs PHP5 on a s
Robert Cummings schrieb:
> You can use separate engines. The topic has been addresses many times
> already. Set up a second instance of apache and use the ProxyPass system
> to pass control from the primary apache server to a PHP5 enabled apache
> server.
I always thought this complexity is why pe
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 17:31, GamblerZG wrote:
Since nobody ansvered the real question my previous message, I will
re-phrase it.
PHP developers assume that PHP5 will be frequently used to parse PHP4
scripts. Why? And what's so horrible about using separate engines to ru
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 17:31, GamblerZG wrote:
> Since nobody ansvered the real question my previous message, I will
> re-phrase it.
>
> PHP developers assume that PHP5 will be frequently used to parse PHP4
> scripts. Why? And what's so horrible about using separate engines to run
> php 4 and 5
Since nobody ansvered the real question my previous message, I will
re-phrase it.
PHP developers assume that PHP5 will be frequently used to parse PHP4
scripts. Why? And what's so horrible about using separate engines to run
php 4 and 5 scripts?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.ne
On Tue, October 11, 2005 11:41 am, GamblerZG wrote:
> Recently, I asked my hosting provider when they are going to switch to
> PHP5. They replied that it will not happen any time soon, since they
> will install PHP5 only on new servers. Their reasoning was simple:
So ask them to move your account
Richard Davey wrote:
You either code for PHP4 or you code for 5.
That's exactly my point.
Backwards compatibility doesn't slow down the evolution of a language
Not true. Quite a few of the discussions of new features and even some
bugfixes end up on "can't be done because of BC".
And if
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 01:56 pm, GamblerZG wrote:
> > On the final hand, if you pass the pages off from apache to a php
> > exe or module.. How does Apache know which one to pass it to? Php4 or
> > Php5?
>
> By the processing instruction target. That's what it's there for. I
> guess php 5 and 4
Kilbride, James wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't Apache hand off to PHP before
it looks at anything inside the file? Doesn't it hand it off at the fact
that the target is SomeFile.php. So the tag files to php5..
I guess you're right. Different filenames would be more appropriat
y, October 11, 2005 2:57 PM
> To: php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] Obsession with BC
>
> > On the final hand, if you pass the pages off from apache to
> a php exe
> > or module.. How does Apache know which one to pass it to? Php4 or
> > Php5?
>
&g
On the final hand, if you pass the pages off from apache to a php
exe or module.. How does Apache know which one to pass it to? Php4 or
Php5?
By the processing instruction target. That's what it's there for. I
guess php 5 and 4 are not the best examples, since php5 already uses
'
If I have
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 13:57, GamblerZG wrote:
Ummm, maybe your speaking alien, but could you clarify how that solves
the problem you are addressing?
First, if every version of the language would have it's own tag, then
there would be no need to maintain BC beyond r
Hi,
Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 7:14:05 PM, you wrote:
> Issue: I think BC slows down the evolution of the language. I know
> for sure it makes some people less willing to upgrade. And there are
> ways of avoding unnecessary BC maintenance altogether.
Beyond not staying stuck in the past? Not rea
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 13:57, GamblerZG wrote:
> >> >>function class_method($var){ }
> >>?>
> >> >>class clazz implements Something{
> >> function method($var) {
> >> }
> >>}
> >>?>
> >
> > Ummm, maybe your speaking alien, but could you clarify how that solves
> > the problem you are addres
ginal Message-
> From: Dan McCullough [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:19 PM
> To: php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] Obsession with BC
>
> The real problem is that it generates customer service and
> support calls to the hosting company,
like a cop out that they can't provide
> php5 somehow.
>
> James Kilbride
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dan McCullough [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:04 PM
> > To: php-general@lists.php.net
> > Subject
It does? I wouldn't waste my money with a host that was unable to
provide PHP 5 support, at least in some way. I think the "it will
break lots of scripts" is a cop-out. There are various ways to allow
both on one server. Assuming they're technically proficient enough of
course.
'What is the best
ow.
James Kilbride
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan McCullough [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:04 PM
> To: php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] Obsession with BC
>
> None of my code breaks from 4 to 5, I also run a small
&
None of my code breaks from 4 to 5, I also run a small hosting company
and I upgrade when I see improvements to the software that would
warrent an upgrade. MySQL 4.1.12, Apache 2, PHP5. I also think its a
cop out by those who dont have alot of time to upgrade their 30+
servers. Another stall or
Ummm, maybe your speaking alien, but could you clarify how that solves
the problem you are addressing?
First, if every version of the language would have it's own tag, then
there would be no need to maintain BC beyond reasonable necessity.
Second, hosing providers would be more apt to upr
Hi,
Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 5:41:53 PM, you wrote:
> Recently, I asked my hosting provider when they are going to switch
> to PHP5. They replied that it will not happen any time soon, since
> they will install PHP5 only on new servers. Their reasoning was
> simple: PHP5 will inevitably break s
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 12:41, GamblerZG wrote:
> Recently, I asked my hosting provider when they are going to switch to
> PHP5. They replied that it will not happen any time soon, since they
> will install PHP5 only on new servers. Their reasoning was simple: PHP5
> will inevitably break some old
Recently, I asked my hosting provider when they are going to switch to
PHP5. They replied that it will not happen any time soon, since they
will install PHP5 only on new servers. Their reasoning was simple: PHP5
will inevitably break some old scripts, and it's just not worh all the
trouble. Suc
28 matches
Mail list logo
