I am getting the following 4 phpt test failure when I run the tests on
the code in CURLEW (I also see them in the 1.2.0 released code so It's
not specific to CURLEW).
SCA 004
SDO bug 10049
SDO bug 10842
SDO bug 8694
Can someone tell me if we are exepcting these to fail?
Simon
Hi Simon,
I've some problems. i installed release 1.2.0, and some of my code
from last week is no longer working ( which was working last Tuesday,
i showed you). Then i also tried the new examples and got the same
error:
PHP Fatal error: Uncaught SCA_RuntimeException: SDO_Exception in
Thanks for doing that Mike
Simon
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
phpsoa group.
To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
Edit report at http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=10925edit=1
ID: 10925
Updated by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Summary: Megic Methods in Service Descriptions
Reported By: michael dot caplan at henryschein dot com
Status: Open
Id: 10925
On May 11, 12:51 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
doh - i always forget about the mem leak message
I wish I could do that too :-)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
phpsoa group.
To post to this
Hi Simon, yes I did. I had been assured that this would be ok because
the 'development in a branch' approach is really only necessary for
native extension code (because pecl4win always pulls this from HEAD).
Let me know if you think the binding should go elsewhere.
On 11 May, 14:48, [EMAIL
Hi Simon,
I've seen this kind of thing happen due to firewall problems. When
you run the tests from the commandline the firewall might block
php.exe, but when you run samples in the browser it lets apache.exe
through. Might be a red herring.
On 11 May, 13:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/07, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Simon, yes I did. I had been assured that this would be ok because
the 'development in a branch' approach is really only necessary for
native extension code (because pecl4win always pulls this from HEAD).
Let me know if you think the
No, I'm using HEAD, but 004 fails for me too, and with the same error.
On 11 May, 15:02, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham
Thanks for the suggestion. I did try turning my firewall of but still got
the same effect. Does php004 pass for you?
Simon
I've just checked the ebaysoap binding into HEAD. I've also checked
in a couple of samples into the examples directory. There's a readme
in the examples directory that briefly describes how to get started.
The binding's pretty easy to use, removing the need for the coder to
work with soap
Nice Graham. Don't have any feedback yet but a quick question. Did you
mean to check it into HEAD rather than the branch?
Simon
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
phpsoa group.
To post to this group,
I've been looking into this issue further. The condition(s) to
determine if a callable method parameter is nillable more tricky than
I initially thought. I was hoping that a simple
ReflectionParameter::allowsNull() call would be all that is
necessary. However, and this makes perfect sense, all
Hi there,
Sorry for the (slightly) off topic posting. I'm wondering if anyone has
had any success consuming a SCA web service in Visual Studio (VB or C#)?
I know very, very little about VB, C#, and Visual Studio. But, I want
to make sure that end users of my service can actually consume it
Nice one Matthew. I tried it on Fedora Core 6 and Windows XP SP2. It
gets a clean bill of health on linux and all is OK on Windows apart
from the two phpt problems I have problems with but you don't.
SCA php004.phpt. I'll just keep an eye on this one as the same code
works in the unit tests
SDO
14 matches
Mail list logo
