php-general Digest 24 May 2012 20:48:06 -0000 Issue 7825
Topics (messages 317976 through 317993):
Re: Need help on increment date
317976 by: Stuart Dallas
317977 by: Md Ashickur Rahman Noor
317978 by: shiplu
317979 by: Md Ashickur Rahman Noor
Cookie use management
317980 by: Lester Caine
317981 by: Jeremiah Dodds
317987 by: Lester Caine
Re: w.r.t. mail() function
317982 by: Matijn Woudt
317992 by: Jim Lucas
Re: Function size
317983 by: Matijn Woudt
317986 by: Steven Staples
317989 by: Jeremiah Dodds
317990 by: Tedd Sperling
317991 by: Tedd Sperling
317993 by: tamouse mailing lists
problem sending email
317984 by: As'ad Djamalilleil
317985 by: Matijn Woudt
Re: openssl_sign() & openssl_verify() discrepancy
317988 by: jas
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-gene...@lists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On 24 May 2012, at 08:18, Md Ashickur Rahman Noor wrote:
> I need help to increment date in php. I found this code helpful
>
> $date = strtotime("+1 day", strtotime("2007-02-28"));
>
> echo date("Y-m-d", $date);
>
>
> But when My date is "2008-02-28" this code give output 2012-03-01. But it
> should be 2008-02-29. Where I am getting wrong.
Works fine for me: http://dev.stut.net/php/increment_date.php
Have you extracted the above from other code, or are you seeing this behaviour
with just those two lines?
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Get this from
here<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/660501/simplest-way-to-increment-a-date-in-php>
----------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Linux Forum in Bangladesh <http://goo.gl/238Ck>
2048R/89C932E1 <http://goo.gl/TkP5U>
Volunteer, FOSS Bangladesh <http://fossbd.org/> && Mozilla
Reps<http://reps.mozilla.org>
01199151550
> Have you extracted the above from other code, or are you seeing this
> behaviour with just those two lines?
>
> -Stuart
>
> --
> Stuart Dallas
> 3ft9 Ltd
> http://3ft9.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It works for me too.
I tell you two things,
a) make sure there is a space after +1 day. So it should look like "+1 day
". This ensures that the unix time is not concatenated with "day".
b) calling strtotime 2 times is not a great solution. You can all it once
only. Like this,
$date = strtotime <http://www.php.net/strtotime>("+1 day 2008-02-28");
// better to call this, as the order is quite logical
$date = strtotime <http://www.php.net/strtotime>("2008-02-28 +1 day");
--
Shiplu.Mokadd.im
ImgSign.com | A dynamic signature machine
Innovation distinguishes between follower and leader
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It works. Thanks you two. Thanks Shiplu bro for the advice.
----------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Linux Forum in Bangladesh <http://goo.gl/238Ck>
2048R/89C932E1 <http://goo.gl/TkP5U>
Volunteer, FOSS Bangladesh <http://fossbd.org/> && Mozilla
Reps<http://reps.mozilla.org>
01199151550
On 24 May 2012 15:08, shiplu <shiplu....@gmail.com> wrote:
> $date = strtotime <http://www.php.net/strtotime>("2008-02-28 +1 day");
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Not directly a PHP problem, but since PHP tends to automatically create a
session cookie I thought it appropriate to ask here first.
The European rules on asking permission to use cookies have been around for a
year now, and very few sites seem to be worrying about it until now, but press
coverage is flagging that the ICO in the UK will start 'prosecuting' next week.
Not exactly what the ICO are saying themselves, as they would prefer that the
BROWSERS defaulted to cookies being blocked generally, so every cookie action
requires approval locally anyway. Session cookies could be claimed to be exempt,
but with the increasing hidden use of Google Analytics or in my case Piwik, WE
become responsible or all that activity and so a few 'commercial' sites are
appearing offering chargeable services to manage this for you.
I've been trying to dig down through the google results to find anything open
source that provides something easily bolted on to existing PHP sites to
intercept cookie use before it actually happens. My reading of the rules would
suggest that simply adding a session cookie is acceptable as long as the site
identifies they are being used, but until there is some 'case law', actually
practice is very grey? Pop-up is obviously out of the question since that can be
blocked, and even javascript could be blocked so what can be relied on to
'Obtain permission before using a cookie'?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> writes:
> Not directly a PHP problem, but since PHP tends to automatically create a
> session cookie I thought it appropriate to ask here first.
I don't know about the rest of your post, but you can easily turn off
this behavior if it's present (unless you are using a rather poor host),
see http://www.php.net/manual/en/session.configuration.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
( Forgot email address :) )
Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
Lester Caine<les...@lsces.co.uk> writes:
Not directly a PHP problem, but since PHP tends to automatically create a
session cookie I thought it appropriate to ask here first.
I don't know about the rest of your post, but you can easily turn off
this behavior if it's present (unless you are using a rather poor host),
see http://www.php.net/manual/en/session.configuration.php
That would probably fall under the ICO acceptance that they don't want people to
feel that they simply have to switch site functionality off ;)
I'm doing the hosting, but many of the sites that I need to support we have not
written the code which as a range of 'frameworks', so I'm trying to find
something that can be added in easily - like the Piwik tracking - without having
to rewrite the sites ...
I'm thinking I need to write my own module, but I can't believe that no-one has
done it yet. Or perhaps they are all charging for the service :)
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Jim Lucas <li...@cmsws.com> wrote:
> On 05/22/2012 09:12 PM, Ashwani Kesharwani wrote:
>>
>> Hi ,
>>
>> I have a query w.r.t. mail() function in php.
>>
>> I have hosted my site and i have created an email account as well.
>>
>> when i am sending mail to different recipient from my php script using
>> above function it is getting delivered to respective recipients as
>> expected.
>>
>> However if I want to see those mail in the sent folder of my email account
>> , i can not see those mails there.
>>
>> How can I achieve this.
>>
>> Any suggestions.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ashwani
>>
>
> Why not BCC it to your self, and then setup a filter in your email client to
> move it where ever you want it to be.
>
Maybe because not everyone uses mail clients that have a filter functionality?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 05/24/2012 04:39 AM, Matijn Woudt wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Jim Lucas<li...@cmsws.com> wrote:
On 05/22/2012 09:12 PM, Ashwani Kesharwani wrote:
Hi ,
I have a query w.r.t. mail() function in php.
I have hosted my site and i have created an email account as well.
when i am sending mail to different recipient from my php script using
above function it is getting delivered to respective recipients as
expected.
However if I want to see those mail in the sent folder of my email account
, i can not see those mails there.
How can I achieve this.
Any suggestions.
Regards
Ashwani
Why not BCC it to your self, and then setup a filter in your email client to
move it where ever you want it to be.
Maybe because not everyone uses mail clients that have a filter functionality?
well, if he is wanting the message to be placed in the outbox or sent
folder of his email client, and this client is on his workstation and
the sent folder is accessed via IMAP, nor is it via a web client, then
his only option is to have his email client filter a message to the sent
folder.
POP3 picks up new messages from your inbox. IMAP allows you to have
folders on/in the mail server file structure, but the mail server would
then need a filter (ie: procmail) to move the new message over to the
correct folder.
So, no matter what type of solution he comes up with, something, either
his client or the mail server will need to have a filter created to move
the message to the correct folder.
Now, I guess you could completely sidestep all security and with proper
setting have php write the email to the correct folder in the persons
sent box. And he could then access it via IMAP and/or a web based email
client. But, this would require that php process have file level access
to the folder which his mail directory resides.
--
Jim Lucas
http://www.cmsws.com/
http://www.cmsws.com/examples/
http://www.bendsource.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM, shiplu <shiplu....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Matijn Woudt <tijn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that large switch block are not always easy and useful to split,
>> however, writing too much code inside a switch block isn't considered good
>> practice too IMO. Though, it is unavoidable in some cases I think. I do have
>> some of these functions in my code too, I have one switch block of more than
>> 500 lines, but that's just because I have more than 400 individual case
>> statements, and I don't think there's a better way to do it. Doesn't mean I
>> like it btw.
>
>
> I never encounter such big switch statement in PHP yet. However I saw huge
> switch and had to optimize it while working with a custom programming
> language interpreter written in C. When I see the language is OO, I try to
> apply polymorphic behavior and eliminate any switch statements. Here is a
> video that demonstrated the concept
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F72VULWFvc
This is interesting. You do realize that if I would take this switch
down to OO, I would have to create 400 different classes to replace
this switch statement? Luckily in PHP we can have more classes in a
single file, thinking about Java for example would mean I have to
create 400 new files...
I like the concept, but I don't see how it works for such switch statements.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> My monitor can also display about 55 lines of code, my functions are, on
> average, just a few lines of code though -- a maximum of about 20, with an
> average of around 5 or so.
>
> This is because the rule of thumb I follow is that a function should do
one
> thing, and should be named well. The biggest downside to the type of style
> I have is that if not done "correctly", people can feel like they're
> swimming in a sea of chasing down functions to find out wtf is going on.
> When done "correctly", it leads to pretty clear code, IMO.
>
> --
Tedd,
I think the length of code depends on a few different factors, what if you
have your docblocks, and comment lines, as well as your bracing style?
Where do you consider your function to start?
Personally, I use this bracing style:
# decide if we should work, or sleep
if($do == $something)
{
# do something here
$work = 'done';
}
else
{
# something isn't being done now
$work = 'sleep';
}
In this (really crude) example, there are 11 lines of code. Granted, the
way you do your bracing you can lose a few lines, and within this example,
it could be written as:
# decide if we should work, or sleep
# default action for if something isn't being done
$work = 'sleep';
if($do == $something) {
# do something here
$work = 'done';
}
So, with that craptastic example, we've taken 11 lines, and compressed it to
7.
Anyways, I get the "rule of thumb" to be able to fit a function on a
"screen", or to make it as small as possible, but sometimes comments can get
in the way, and if you like your bracing style, you end up with a lot of
extra lines of code too (also if you like to have blank lines between
actions).
Anyways, my IDE that I use, shows 47 lines on the screen, at 145 characters
across, using Courier New 9pt, and I try to keep it to 80 characters wide,
but that doesn't always happen :P
Steve.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"Steven Staples" <sstap...@mnsi.net> writes:
>> My monitor can also display about 55 lines of code, my functions are, on
>> average, just a few lines of code though -- a maximum of about 20, with an
>> average of around 5 or so.
>>
>> This is because the rule of thumb I follow is that a function should do
> one
>> thing, and should be named well. The biggest downside to the type of style
>> I have is that if not done "correctly", people can feel like they're
>> swimming in a sea of chasing down functions to find out wtf is going on.
>> When done "correctly", it leads to pretty clear code, IMO.
>>
>> --
>
> Tedd,
>
> I think the length of code depends on a few different factors, what if you
> have your docblocks, and comment lines, as well as your bracing style?
> Where do you consider your function to start?
I, and I'm fairly sure many others, do not count docblocks, comment
lines, or lines containing only braces in the count for LOC in a
function.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On May 23, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
> I'm of the same mind. Generally I'll split a function if I'm reusing more
> than a couple of lines of code. I only split a "large" function if it's
> actually doing several things, if it happens to need 200 lines to perform one
> 'step' then I'll leave it as is. While I do prefer my functions to fit into a
> single 'screen', it rarely happens quite like that, because I move from
> screen to screen with different resolutions, so there's no constant limit for
> me.
>
> As a rough example, on a random selection of 27 functions taken from a
> controller on a site I worked on I get these general statistics:
>
> Functions: 27
> Mean lines: 22.5
> Mode lines: 3
> Max lines: 218
>
> The function with 218 lines is a large switch, and it doesn't make sense to
> do it any other way, because it would actually end up less readable.
I see you and I are like minds in many ways.
I had one large switch block that had 255 different cases. Oddly enough I was
parsing a "Tiger" data file (USGS survey data) that contained 255 different
record types. Each record type required a different function to parse the data
and render it's portion of the overall map. That lead to me create a
linked-list that held the memory addresses of both data and function. That way
simply accessing the linked list coupled data to function and drew the map. It
was neat.
I find it also neat, while I'm not an expert on the subject, eliminating the
need for 'switch' and 'if' statements via extending classes in OO.
Shiplu provided a link, which I found interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F72VULWFvc
It showed how one can eliminate such conditionals, but at the same time it
massively increased the code to preform 1 + 2 * 3. :-)
And to others, I don't need comment on how I missed the point -- I didn't.
Cheers,
tedd
_____________________
t...@sperling.com
http://sperling.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On May 24, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Steven Staples wrote:
> Tedd,
>
> I think the length of code depends on a few different factors, what if you
> have your docblocks, and comment lines, as well as your bracing style?
> Where do you consider your function to start?
It starts where it starts. It doesn't make any difference how you do it, it's
what you see in one view that counts.
If you are very verbose with spaces, brace styles, comments, and such, then
your functions have less actual statement lines than others with more cryptic
coding styles, but I would bet the line limit of total number of lines remain
in place regardless. This is more a condition of physical/mental limits on
humans than it is on coding style.
So, there's no "better" or "worse' point here -- it is more an observation.
Cheers,
tedd
_____________________
t...@sperling.com
http://sperling.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On May 23, 2012 9:14 AM, "Tedd Sperling" <t...@sperling.com> wrote:
>
> Hi gang:
>
> On May 21, 2012, at 8:32 PM, tamouse mailing lists wrote:
> > A rule of thumb is no more than 50 lines per
> > function, most much less. Back in the day when we didn't have nifty
> > gui screens and an 24 line terminals (yay green on black!), if a
> > function exceeded one printed page, it was deemed too long and marked
> > for refactoring.
>
> You hit upon a theory of mine -- and that is our functions grow in size
up to our ability to view them in their totality. When our functions get
beyond that limit, we tend to refactor and reduce.
>
> I know from the last several decades of programming, my functions have
increased in number of lines. But, they have reached a limit that limit is
generally about the number of lines I can read in half of my monitor's
height. This of course, is dependent on monitor resolution, font-size, and
how far I am sitting from the monitor. But I think this is a natural and
physical limit that we don't normally recognize. I can cite studies that
support my theory.
>
> It would be an interesting survey to ask programmers to review their code
and provide the average number of lines in their functions AND how many
lines of code their monitor's can display. In other words, look at your
editor; count the number of lines your monitor can display; estimate the
number of lines in your average function; and report the findings. For
example, mine is about half -- my monitor can display 55 lines of code and
my average function is around 25 lines. YMMV.
>
> Interesting, yes?
>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd
>
>
> _____________________
> tedd.sperl...@gmail.com
> http://sperling.com
>
>
>
>
>
Yes, I think that is *exactly* the criterion-- not a mystery or an emergent
thing, really, was a pretty expicit reasoning--being able to see/scan the
entire function on one page (or now in one screenful) makes it much easier
to see what happens in the function, where blocks open/close, and it forces
one to break up code into logical units.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
hi all,i'm having this problem in sending email using pear.
it just wont send :(
here's the code ..
<?php
require_once 'Mail.php';
$from_name = "My Self";
$to_name = "My Friend";
$subject = "Sending Trial";
$mailmsg = "GOD please make it work";
$From = "From: ".$from_name." <mym...@gmail.com>";
$To = "To: ".$to_name." <some...@yahoo.com>";
$recipients = "some...@yahoo.com";
$headers["From"] = $From;
$headers["To"] = $To;
$headers["Subject"] = $subject;
$headers["Content-Type"] = "text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1";
$smtpinfo["host"] = "smtp.gmail.com";
$smtpinfo["port"] = "465";
$smtpinfo["auth"] = true;
$smtpinfo["username"] = "mym...@gmail.com";
$smtpinfo["password"] = "mypassword";
$mail_object =& Mail::factory("smtp", $smtpinfo);
$mail_object->send($recipients, $headers, $mailmsg);
if (PEAR::isError($mail_object))
echo $mail_object->getMessage();
?>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM, As'ad Djamalilleil <asad....@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi all,i'm having this problem in sending email using pear.
> it just wont send :(
> here's the code ..
>
> <?php
> require_once 'Mail.php';
>
> $from_name = "My Self";
> $to_name = "My Friend";
> $subject = "Sending Trial";
> $mailmsg = "GOD please make it work";
>
> $From = "From: ".$from_name." <mym...@gmail.com>";
> $To = "To: ".$to_name." <some...@yahoo.com>";
Don't prefix with From: and To: here.
> $recipients = "some...@yahoo.com";
>
> $headers["From"] = $From;
> $headers["To"] = $To;
> $headers["Subject"] = $subject;
> $headers["Content-Type"] = "text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1";
>
> $smtpinfo["host"] = "smtp.gmail.com";
> $smtpinfo["port"] = "465";
> $smtpinfo["auth"] = true;
> $smtpinfo["username"] = "mym...@gmail.com";
> $smtpinfo["password"] = "mypassword";
>
> $mail_object =& Mail::factory("smtp", $smtpinfo);
>
> $mail_object->send($recipients, $headers, $mailmsg);
>
> if (PEAR::isError($mail_object))
> echo $mail_object->getMessage();
> ?>
Also, Gmail SMTP supports only SSL connections. I don't know this PEAR
module, but I think you need to host set to something like
ssl://smtp.gmail.com, to enforce SSL connection.
- Matijn
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 05/23/2012 02:00 PM, Matijn Woudt wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Jason Gerfen<jason.ger...@utah.edu> wrote:
On 05/23/2012 01:26 PM, Matijn Woudt wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Jason Gerfen<jason.ger...@utah.edu>
wrote:
On 05/23/2012 01:05 PM, Matijn Woudt wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:29 PM, jas<jason.ger...@utah.edu> wrote:
I have run into a problem that I am altogether unfamiliar with.
A scenario. I retrieve a users private key from a database.
I then use the openssl_pkey_get_private() function to load it as a
resource
object and proceed to call the openssl_sign() function to obtain a
digital
signature of a string.
No problem, I get a valid signature which I then base64 encode and
store
in
a database.
Now lets say a couple of days from now I load up the public key which
corresponds to the private key which was used to originally sign the
data
to
verify it and it does not work.
The kicker is if I perform the very same routine without saving the
signature and attempting to verify it it works without problems.
Have you checked what $signed looks like after running the script?
Compare it to $signature. Most likely you corrupted your date
elsewhere, maybe when inserting it into the database.
- Matijn
The example that accompanies the post shows two examples, one works& one
does not. Neither however use any type of database, as both simply assign
or
use the valid signature stored within either the $signature or $signed
variables.
I wish I could say that is the problem, I took care to properly
encode/decode when saving or retrieving the information and as well in
the
original post I removed this as a possible cause by simply defining the
$signature variable and assigning a valid signature to it for testing.
First of all, it seems $signature is in base64 format, so I think you
should base64_decode that one first. Then it appears to me that
$signature is not the same as $signed, on my system. If I
base64_encode $signed, save it by copying it from my browser, and then
enter it as $signature, and then use base64_decode on $signature it
works fine.
- Matijn
Those are the same steps I just mentioned. The base64_decoding is a typo on
the second example. It should read
openssl_verify($unsigned, base64_decode($signature), $id);
Well, then maybe you should explain the problem further, because with
this it works fine, and it appears to me the problem is not here but
it comes when you try to store/retrieve the data.
- Matijn
Well without you saying "should explain the problem further" I wouldn't
have conducted the series of tests to verify each component being used
within the sign/save & retrieve/verify processes.
I was passing the wrong argument in during my retrieve/verify flow.
Thanks again!
--- End Message ---
