Hi folks
Here is my ISPs comments on the advice from Rasmus:
Rasmus wrote:
>>
>> Well, I tend to prefer compile from source as well. I guess they simply
>> don't realize that you can compile most of the extensions as shared
>> libraries and configure what should be loaded at runtime in the php.
Here's an idea. Provide commercial PHP support for ISP's for a fee.
Yearly subscriptions ?
via email?
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 4:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [P
: PHP General
Subject: RE: [PHP] Re: The future of PHP -- accessory libraries
> So it looks like this is mostly a documentation issue. We have not done a
> good job educating the ISPs out there. But they should have been able to
> figure this out by looking at how PHP is packaged by th
> So it looks like this is mostly a documentation issue. We have not done a
> good job educating the ISPs out there. But they should have been able to
> figure this out by looking at how PHP is packaged by the various
> distribution vendours.
Perhaps a section in the manual dedicated to ISP rel
> Hi folks
>
> I asked my ISP to flesh out their negative comments about adding libraries
> to PHP.
>
> This is their reply - is there anything in this, or are they
> misunderstanding the situation?
>
> >
> We run servers. We want to compile stuff from source, for obvious reasons!
> As suc
MAIL PROTECTED]>; "Rasmus Lerdorf"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:58 PM
Subject: [PHP] Re: The future of PHP -- accessory libraries
> Hi folks
>
> I asked my ISP to flesh out their negative comments about adding libraries
> to PHP.
>
&g
Hi folks
I asked my ISP to flesh out their negative comments about adding libraries
to PHP.
This is their reply - is there anything in this, or are they
misunderstanding the situation?
>
We run servers. We want to compile stuff from source, for obvious reasons!
As such, the question is
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > Exactly. When you do ./configure --with-foo=shared;
make
> > then modules/foo.so will appear magically and you can dl() that
or load it
> > using "extension=foo.so" in your php.ini. You don't have
to recompile
> > PHP.
> >
> > -Rasmus
>
> I am afraid that is only theor
If I didn't know you're not working for Zend, I'd suspect that was a
prepared-question :)
http://www.zend.com/engine2/ZendEngine-2.0.pdf
At 11:26 29-08-01, Geoff Caplan wrote:
>Hi folks
>
>While we are on the subject of strategic issues for PHP, a quick question on
>the OOP functionality.
>
>As
At 11:13 29-08-01, Geoff Caplan wrote:
>I am not very technical, as you will have gathered. But all I can do is pass
>on the view of my (rather good) ISP. They offer Java, Perl and PHP, and say
>that they find PHP much the most difficult to extend.
Can you elaborate on what you (or they) mean by
Rasmus
>
> That's a pretty good list. And the Mandrake and Debian packages are every
> bit as complete. I am not as familiar with SuSE nor the fbsd port, but I
> would be very surprised if they were not very close to, if not better
> than, the current RedHat rpms.
>
Thanks for the education -
> Being practical, the vast majority of serious PHP applications will be
> running on Linux. If you were to cover RedHat, and .rpm compatible distros
> such as SuSE, you would cover the requirements of perhaps the majority of
> users.
But RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian and FreeBSD already have de
Hi folks
While we are on the subject of strategic issues for PHP, a quick question on
the OOP functionality.
As many on this list will know, there is a peculiarity with the PHP object
model - in many situations it creates a copy of an instance when you would
expect a reference. This means that y
Rasmus
Thanks for your very full and thoughtful reply
> Surely there are things we can improve upon, but the current statement of
> the problem whichs assumes that Perl and Java are lightyears ahead of PHP
> when it comes to extending their functionality just isn't true.
I am not very technical
> > Exactly. When you do ./configure --with-foo=shared; make
> > then modules/foo.so will appear magically and you can dl() that or load it
> > using "extension=foo.so" in your php.ini. You don't have to recompile
> > PHP.
> >
> > -Rasmus
>
> I am afraid that is only theory. I tried that for the
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > That's not allowing me to simply dl() an SO file, because I don't have the
> > SO file to start with - that's what I was trying to get at. If I have
> > to reconfigure
> > everything, there's not much point, I don't think. Unless I'm missing
> > something
> > ob
> Exactly. When you do ./configure --with-foo=shared; make
> then modules/foo.so will appear magically and you can dl() that or load it
> using "extension=foo.so" in your php.ini. You don't have to recompile
This is very good news! I must have mis-rad the manual on this part!! Is
there any way
> That's not allowing me to simply dl() an SO file, because I don't have the
> SO file to start with - that's what I was trying to get at. If I have
> to reconfigure
> everything, there's not much point, I don't think. Unless I'm missing
> something
> obvious. I'd like to be able to simply have
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>Something which seems to not be a viable option for most things is SO
>>files. For some reason, the only "real" way (documented) to get
>>things into PHP is to compile them all into PHP. I've used the pdflib
>>SO file and just used dl() to bring it in - works like a ch
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>Look at it from their point of view. Say, as a customer, you want to use
>>library X. The ISP looks around and eventually find it lives on a personal
>>site in Greece or Hungary. Not very confidence inspiring. The ftp on this
>>site is broken, so they email the author a
Geoff (and the list) ...
You have presented an excellent, well-reasoned case, which I endorse 100
percent.
You also raised issues I have not had to consider, as my development has
been for lightly loaded servers under my control, with only the PostgreSQL
and MySQL libraries required. I'll als
> Something which seems to not be a viable option for most things is SO
> files. For some reason, the only "real" way (documented) to get
> things into PHP is to compile them all into PHP. I've used the pdflib
> SO file and just used dl() to bring it in - works like a champ. Pity I
> can't do th
> Look at it from their point of view. Say, as a customer, you want to use
> library X. The ISP looks around and eventually find it lives on a personal
> site in Greece or Hungary. Not very confidence inspiring. The ftp on this
> site is broken, so they email the author and wait a couple of days
Geoff Caplan wrote:
>Rasmus wrote
>
>>This is solved by people who roll distributions. Debian, Mandrake,
>>RedHat, FreeBSD, etc. It is very simple to add new features to an
>>existing PHP setup through these binary distributions of PHP, even for
>>newbies. Once you know your way around PHP a
>installation for the other 400 customers using the server. Then they have to
>take the server down to install the new build. Is it any wonder that they
>just say "no"?
I have to go with the (few) extensions/librarys provided by my ISP.
If you don't run your own server, that's how it works with
m
Rasmus wrote
> This is solved by people who roll distributions. Debian, Mandrake,
> RedHat, FreeBSD, etc. It is very simple to add new features to an
> existing PHP setup through these binary distributions of PHP, even for
> newbies. Once you know your way around PHP and its build system, you
> I love PHP, but for the following reason it could be the death of it. All
> the PHP intellectuals stand up, get together, and solve this problem, or at
> least give us some reassurance. (I'm only a newbie after all). :)
This is solved by people who roll distributions. Debian, Mandrake,
RedHat
So sprach »Geoff Caplan« am 2001-08-27 um 11:26:09 +0100 :
> standard, and no central repository. This compares badly with platforms such
> as Perl and Java, who tackled this issue long ago.
Actually, I think you're right.
On the one hand, it's quite nice that there are so many librariries
which
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 6:11 AM
To: Geoff Caplan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PHP] Re: The future of PHP -- accessory libraries
Geoff Caplan said:
> I would just like to highlight an issue which I feel has a negative effect
> on the acceptance of PHP.
> This is the difficu
> From: Geoff Caplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:26 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PHP] Re: The future of PHP
>
>
> Hi folks
>
> I would just like to highlight an issue which I feel has a negative effect
> on the acceptance
Hi folks
I would just like to highlight an issue which I feel has a negative effect
on the acceptance of PHP.
This is the difficulty of finding, downloading, compiling and installing the
various PHP libraries not included in the core distribution. Many quite
important libraries seem to be persoa
Hello,
Steve Orr wrote:
>
> What kind of PHP application development frameworks, class libraries, or
> templates are widely used? Is SiteManager any good? How about phplib?
> Others? Doesn't the future of object oriented PHP depend on good foundation
> classes? Any comments on PHP object orienta
"Christopher Cm Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
003201c12be2$f9309b00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:003201c12be2$f9309b00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Greetings Php'ers:
> <2 cents>
> bahh to servelts-asp these are new kids on the block. Template this or
that,
> it doesnt matter, most templates a
XML is pretty standardized, but the implementation of it in various web
browsers isn't.
I wouldn't consider XML all that comparable to HTML. They don't serve the
same purpose. XML is generally used to order and describe data (metadata,
basically), and although HTML serves roughly the same pur
Greetings Php'ers:
<2 cents>
bahh to servelts-asp these are new kids on the block. Template this or that,
it doesnt matter, most templates are for lazy peeps anyways :)
, a solid base of people have been using phtml->php for years. It doesnt
matter to me what the e-zines say about which is more ro
Thomas Deliduka wrote:
> A little background... Skip to "THE JIST" if you wanna make this quick.
>
> I am on this webmaster's list where most of the people are fairly new
> webmasters. They're just getting the hang of things. I am probably one of
> the only advanced ones on there (not to toot
On 8/22/2001 10:52 PM this was written:
> I don't know if you refer to this list or other one, but I've been a
> webmaster since 1993 and in computers in general since 1988 and I also
> consider myself of the "advanced" type.
It definitely wasn't this list. It's another one.
--
Thomas Deliduk
"Thomas Deliduka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A little background... Skip to "THE JIST" if you wanna make this quick.
>
> I am on this webmaster's list where most of the people are fairly new
> webmasters. They're just getting the hang of thi
38 matches
Mail list logo
