php-general Digest 19 Aug 2013 18:32:01 -0000 Issue 8336
Topics (messages 321861 through 321879):
How can I submit more than 2000 items of data?
321861 by: aesbovis
321862 by: Mihai Anghel
321863 by: Szopen Xiao
321864 by: Jan Ehrhardt
321866 by: aesbovis
321867 by: aesbovis
321868 by: Stuart Dallas
321873 by: Matijn Woudt
321874 by: Stuart Dallas
321875 by: Matijn Woudt
321876 by: Stuart Dallas
321877 by: Tedd Sperling
Re: how old is this version of PHP?
321865 by: Thomas Punt
321869 by: Lester Caine
321870 by: Jeff Burcher
321871 by: Sebastian Krebs
321872 by: Lester Caine
321878 by: Larry Garfield
Mysqli Extension
321879 by: Ethan Rosenberg
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 ---
Hello there
I am making a little web-based-tool for our studio to progress a large
amount of data, more than 2000 items, but it seems there is a length limit
of 1000 to $_POST.
How can I submit all of the items in one time?
Thank you!
aesbovis
--
*Anywhere @aesbovis!*
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Check this http://www.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.post-max-size
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:55 AM, aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello there
> I am making a little web-based-tool for our studio to progress a large
> amount of data, more than 2000 items, but it seems there is a length limit
> of 1000 to $_POST.
>
> How can I submit all of the items in one time?
>
> Thank you!
> aesbovis
>
> --
> *Anywhere @aesbovis!*
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
you can use JSON post
2013/8/19 aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com>:
> Hello there
> I am making a little web-based-tool for our studio to progress a large
> amount of data, more than 2000 items, but it seems there is a length limit
> of 1000 to $_POST.
>
> How can I submit all of the items in one time?
>
> Thank you!
> aesbovis
>
> --
> *Anywhere @aesbovis!*
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mihai Anghel in php.general (Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:30:01 +0300):
>Check this http://www.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.post-max-size
Keyword: max_input_vars.
Jan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
T
hank you, it works now.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <php...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
> Mihai Anghel in php.general (Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:30:01 +0300):
> >Check this http://www.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.post-max-size
>
> Keyword: max_input_vars.
>
> Jan
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
*Anywhere @aesbovis!*
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I know Javascript can solve it, but I don't want to use Js.
Thank you all the same.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Szopen Xiao <chopins.x...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you can use JSON post
>
> 2013/8/19 aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com>:
> > Hello there
> > I am making a little web-based-tool for our studio to progress a large
> > amount of data, more than 2000 items, but it seems there is a length
> limit
> > of 1000 to $_POST.
> >
> > How can I submit all of the items in one time?
> >
> > Thank you!
> > aesbovis
> >
> > --
> > *Anywhere @aesbovis!*
>
--
*Anywhere @aesbovis!*
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 19 Aug 2013, at 10:49, aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know Javascript can solve it, but I don't want to use Js.
> Thank you all the same.
I know you've had the right answer, but I think it's worth pointing out that
use of JSON in no way requires Javascript, despite its name.
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Szopen Xiao <chopins.x...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> you can use JSON post
>>
>> 2013/8/19 aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hello there
>>> I am making a little web-based-tool for our studio to progress a large
>>> amount of data, more than 2000 items, but it seems there is a length
>> limit
>>> of 1000 to $_POST.
>>>
>>> How can I submit all of the items in one time?
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>> aesbovis
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Anywhere @aesbovis!*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Anywhere @aesbovis!*
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2013, at 10:49, aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I know Javascript can solve it, but I don't want to use Js.
> > Thank you all the same.
>
> I know you've had the right answer, but I think it's worth pointing out
> that use of JSON in no way requires Javascript, despite its name.
>
> -Stuart
>
>
You might want to explain how you convert form data to JSON without
javascript?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 19 Aug 2013, at 15:56, Matijn Woudt <tijn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2013, at 10:49, aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I know Javascript can solve it, but I don't want to use Js.
> > Thank you all the same.
>
> I know you've had the right answer, but I think it's worth pointing out that
> use of JSON in no way requires Javascript, despite its name.
>
> -Stuart
>
>
> You might want to explain how you convert form data to JSON without
> javascript?
PHP can do it. Ruby can do it. .NET can do it. Just because you want to use
JSON in a web browser where Javascript is the go-to method, doesn't mean JSON
requires Javascript.
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2013, at 15:56, Matijn Woudt <tijn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19 Aug 2013, at 10:49, aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I know Javascript can solve it, but I don't want to use Js.
>> > Thank you all the same.
>>
>> I know you've had the right answer, but I think it's worth pointing out
>> that use of JSON in no way requires Javascript, despite its name.
>>
>> -Stuart
>>
>>
> You might want to explain how you convert form data to JSON without
> javascript?
>
>
> PHP can do it. Ruby can do it. .NET can do it. Just because you want to
> use JSON in a web browser where Javascript is the go-to method, doesn't
> mean JSON requires Javascript.
>
> -Stuart
>
>
>
Yes, of course they can do it, but then you first need to submit the POST
data (which he could not do because of the above). Javascript is more or
less the only way to do it (yes I know Flash....)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 19 Aug 2013, at 16:24, Matijn Woudt <tijn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2013, at 15:56, Matijn Woudt <tijn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2013, at 10:49, aesbovis <aesbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I know Javascript can solve it, but I don't want to use Js.
>> > Thank you all the same.
>>
>> I know you've had the right answer, but I think it's worth pointing out that
>> use of JSON in no way requires Javascript, despite its name.
>>
>> -Stuart
>>
>>
>> You might want to explain how you convert form data to JSON without
>> javascript?
>
> PHP can do it. Ruby can do it. .NET can do it. Just because you want to use
> JSON in a web browser where Javascript is the go-to method, doesn't mean JSON
> requires Javascript.
>
> -Stuart
>
>
>
> Yes, of course they can do it, but then you first need to submit the POST
> data (which he could not do because of the above). Javascript is more or less
> the only way to do it (yes I know Flash….)
I wasn't speaking to his specific issue as that was solved by an earlier
response. I was just commenting that the implied intrinsic link between JSON
and Javascript in what he had said does not exist.
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Aug 19, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
> I wasn't speaking to his specific issue as that was solved by an earlier
> response. I was just commenting that the implied intrinsic link between JSON
> and Javascript in what he had said does not exist.
>
> -Stuart
This is similar JAVA and JavaScript confusion -- even the college where I teach
didn't know the difference.
For example, several years ago, they asked me if I could teach Java-JavaScript
and I answered "Sure, which one?" The administrator stood there like a dog who
just heard a high note and replied "Yes, we want you to teach Java-JavaScript".
After I explained the difference, her next comment was "Which one are you
certified in?"
She went from not knowing the difference to knowing that certification was
required to teach it (whatever it was).
It's a wonder that anyone receives an education these days.
Cheers,
tedd
_______________
tedd sperling
tedd.sperl...@gmail.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Godaddy enables you to upgrade to PHP 5.3 in the cPanel settings.
> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 01:07:17 -0500
> From: la...@garfieldtech.com
> To: php-gene...@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] how old is this version of PHP?
>
> 5.2.9 was released in February of 2009. 5.2 is completely retired and
> out of support. 5.3 is on security-only life-support. 5.4 is the
> legacy stable release.
>
> Yes, 5.2.9 IS that old. :-) Really, get a host that has made it into
> this decade. (GoDaddy apparently doesn't meet that qualification.)
> You're doing clients a disservice by allowing them to run such an
> ancient and unsupported version.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Larry Garfield wrote:
5.2.9 was released in February of 2009. 5.2 is completely retired and out of
support. 5.3 is on security-only life-support. 5.4 is the legacy stable
release.
Yes, 5.2.9 IS that old. :-) Really, get a host that has made it into this
decade. (GoDaddy apparently doesn't meet that qualification.) You're doing
clients a disservice by allowing them to run such an ancient and unsupported
version.
While the statements are correct, many users are not in a position to move from
their currently working systems to even 5.3 let alone 5.4. There is still a lot
of legacy code that unless a few more people step up and help bring it forward
for the many - non programming - users who are stuck with legacy applications,
they will remain requiring 5.2 to run. ISPs got caught out when they arbitrarily
moved accounts forward, and GoDaddy have even been caught by that, so
maintaining a LTS version of PHP5.2 is the lesser evil ... Windows 2000 is
supposed to be dead, but *I* still have sites reliant on it because the code and
hardware is unsupported in even XP. Saying something is dead only works if there
is an affordable way of moving forward ;)
--
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
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I apologize if this is off topic, but this raises a question for me. Why
can't new versions be backwards compatible? Is it really that difficult to
accomplish? This has been a complaint of mine for years with Windows ever
since we went from 95 to 98. I am an AS400 programmer and I have legacy
programs written in RPG II, which died 20 years ago, and they still run fine
on the newest version of AS400 or iSeries or Power System or whatever the
heck it is called now. I also have PHP scripts that are many years old that
work just fine the way they are, if a new version doesn't come along and
make me have to reprogram for no reason just because it can't handle older
code. Really, have Do loops and data calls changed that much over the years?
I mean, all you do is set a condition, use a variable key field, and voila,
data is pulled and processed, no big deal. Yeah, you can get fancy with it,
but the core basics are still the same. I have been programming for over 35
years and like to think that once a program is built it should run forever.
Do we just accept that we have to rewrite every program we ever wrote every
time a new version comes out? A little extreme, but you get my point.
Comments? Suggestions?
(I am also the kind of guy who thinks quality made hand tools from the 1800s
are superior to many purchased today at Lowes or Home Depot.)
Thanks,
Jeff Burcher - IT Dept
Allred Metal Stamping Works
"Making Metal Parts since 1946."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:24 AM
> To: php-gene...@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] how old is this version of PHP?
>
> Larry Garfield wrote:
> > 5.2.9 was released in February of 2009. 5.2 is completely retired and
> > out of support. 5.3 is on security-only life-support. 5.4 is the
legacy stable
> release.
> >
> > Yes, 5.2.9 IS that old. :-) Really, get a host that has made it into
> > this decade. (GoDaddy apparently doesn't meet that qualification.)
> > You're doing clients a disservice by allowing them to run such an
> > ancient and unsupported version.
>
> While the statements are correct, many users are not in a position to move
> from their currently working systems to even 5.3 let alone 5.4. There is
still a
> lot of legacy code that unless a few more people step up and help bring it
> forward for the many - non programming - users who are stuck with legacy
> applications, they will remain requiring 5.2 to run. ISPs got caught out
when
> they arbitrarily moved accounts forward, and GoDaddy have even been
> caught by that, so maintaining a LTS version of PHP5.2 is the lesser evil
...
> Windows 2000 is supposed to be dead, but *I* still have sites reliant on
it
> because the code and hardware is unsupported in even XP. Saying
> something is dead only works if there is an affordable way of moving
forward
> ;)
>
> --
> 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 Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit:
> http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2013/8/19 Jeff Burcher <j...@allredmetal.com>
>
> I apologize if this is off topic, but this raises a question for me. Why
> can't new versions be backwards compatible? Is it really that difficult to
> accomplish? This has been a complaint of mine for years with Windows ever
> since we went from 95 to 98. I am an AS400 programmer and I have legacy
> programs written in RPG II, which died 20 years ago, and they still run
> fine
> on the newest version of AS400 or iSeries or Power System or whatever the
> heck it is called now. I also have PHP scripts that are many years old that
> work just fine the way they are, if a new version doesn't come along and
> make me have to reprogram for no reason just because it can't handle older
> code. Really, have Do loops and data calls changed that much over the
> years?
> I mean, all you do is set a condition, use a variable key field, and voila,
> data is pulled and processed, no big deal. Yeah, you can get fancy with it,
> but the core basics are still the same. I have been programming for over 35
> years and like to think that once a program is built it should run forever.
> Do we just accept that we have to rewrite every program we ever wrote every
> time a new version comes out? A little extreme, but you get my point.
> Comments? Suggestions?
>
My 2 cent: I hadn't any major issues with BC since 5.3 and from 5.2 it
required a little bit to do, but was solveable (means: It wasn't
complicated, but only an afternoon time to invest). Caine complaints from
time to time his codebase here. That is nothing new and I am unsure how
representative his statements are.
Regards,
Sebastian
>
> (I am also the kind of guy who thinks quality made hand tools from the
> 1800s
> are superior to many purchased today at Lowes or Home Depot.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff Burcher - IT Dept
> Allred Metal Stamping Works
> "Making Metal Parts since 1946."
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk]
> > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:24 AM
> > To: php-gene...@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PHP] how old is this version of PHP?
> >
> > Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > 5.2.9 was released in February of 2009. 5.2 is completely retired and
> > > out of support. 5.3 is on security-only life-support. 5.4 is the
> legacy stable
> > release.
> > >
> > > Yes, 5.2.9 IS that old. :-) Really, get a host that has made it into
> > > this decade. (GoDaddy apparently doesn't meet that qualification.)
> > > You're doing clients a disservice by allowing them to run such an
> > > ancient and unsupported version.
> >
> > While the statements are correct, many users are not in a position to
> move
> > from their currently working systems to even 5.3 let alone 5.4. There is
> still a
> > lot of legacy code that unless a few more people step up and help bring
> it
> > forward for the many - non programming - users who are stuck with legacy
> > applications, they will remain requiring 5.2 to run. ISPs got caught out
> when
> > they arbitrarily moved accounts forward, and GoDaddy have even been
> > caught by that, so maintaining a LTS version of PHP5.2 is the lesser evil
> ...
> > Windows 2000 is supposed to be dead, but *I* still have sites reliant on
> it
> > because the code and hardware is unsupported in even XP. Saying
> > something is dead only works if there is an affordable way of moving
> forward
> > ;)
> >
> > --
> > 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 Rainbow Digital Media -
> http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
> >
> > --
> > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
github.com/KingCrunch
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sebastian Krebs wrote:
Do we just accept that we have to rewrite every program we ever wrote every
>time a new version comes out? A little extreme, but you get my point.
>Comments? Suggestions?
>
My 2 cent: I hadn't any major issues with BC since 5.3 and from 5.2 it
required a little bit to do, but was solveable (means: It wasn't
complicated, but only an afternoon time to invest). Caine complaints from
time to time his codebase here. That is nothing new and I am unsure how
representative his statements are.
My 'problem' came about through taking over a couple of small hosting companies
who had sites across several ISP's and various versions of PHP ( and ASP thrown
in for good measure ). Every site required a day or so's work to tidy up, and
little problems thrown in like the <?= cock-up which took down 5 sites when that
ISP 'upgraded' PHP to the problem version. But the main problem still is making
things E_STRICT compliant since PHP5.4 tends to be set up with it enabled and
PHP5.3 will be fazed out on ISP's at some point.
I'm slowly moving sites to servers where I do have control of the framework, but
'just an afternoons work' across a large number of sites and fire fighting when
sites go down without prior warning all takes time ... I can't really complain,
I've been picking up customers who's sites have been affected and earning money
from them :) I have to say no to a lot though as there are only so many hours in
a day.
--
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
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Far too much is made of BC breaks between PHP versions. Well-behaved
code should still be working a decade later.
The catch is that "well behaved" gets tighter each release. For example:
$foo = "hello";
$bar = "world";
print $foo[$bar];
In PHP 5.3 and earlier, $bar is a string which makes no sense as an
index of a string. It needs to be an int. PHP therefore casts that to
an int, gets 0, and you get "h".
In PHP 5.4, that was acknowledged as a bug (which it always was), and
now triggers a Warning. Because, really, it always was a bug but just
failed silently before. Now it tells you so you can fix it. It looks
like a BC break, though, because "I get an error I didn't used to".
Other things are, eg, removing register_globals and magic_quotes, which
have been deprecated for about 12 years and if you were still using them
now then your code should break. :-) They're a security hole. But
those are very few and far between.
--Larry Garfield
On 8/19/13 7:25 AM, Jeff Burcher wrote:
I apologize if this is off topic, but this raises a question for me. Why
can't new versions be backwards compatible? Is it really that difficult to
accomplish? This has been a complaint of mine for years with Windows ever
since we went from 95 to 98. I am an AS400 programmer and I have legacy
programs written in RPG II, which died 20 years ago, and they still run fine
on the newest version of AS400 or iSeries or Power System or whatever the
heck it is called now. I also have PHP scripts that are many years old that
work just fine the way they are, if a new version doesn't come along and
make me have to reprogram for no reason just because it can't handle older
code. Really, have Do loops and data calls changed that much over the years?
I mean, all you do is set a condition, use a variable key field, and voila,
data is pulled and processed, no big deal. Yeah, you can get fancy with it,
but the core basics are still the same. I have been programming for over 35
years and like to think that once a program is built it should run forever.
Do we just accept that we have to rewrite every program we ever wrote every
time a new version comes out? A little extreme, but you get my point.
Comments? Suggestions?
(I am also the kind of guy who thinks quality made hand tools from the 1800s
are superior to many purchased today at Lowes or Home Depot.)
Thanks,
Jeff Burcher - IT Dept
Allred Metal Stamping Works
"Making Metal Parts since 1946."
-----Original Message-----
From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:24 AM
To: php-gene...@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] how old is this version of PHP?
Larry Garfield wrote:
5.2.9 was released in February of 2009. 5.2 is completely retired and
out of support. 5.3 is on security-only life-support. 5.4 is the
legacy stable
release.
Yes, 5.2.9 IS that old. :-) Really, get a host that has made it into
this decade. (GoDaddy apparently doesn't meet that qualification.)
You're doing clients a disservice by allowing them to run such an
ancient and unsupported version.
While the statements are correct, many users are not in a position to move
from their currently working systems to even 5.3 let alone 5.4. There is
still a
lot of legacy code that unless a few more people step up and help bring it
forward for the many - non programming - users who are stuck with legacy
applications, they will remain requiring 5.2 to run. ISPs got caught out
when
they arbitrarily moved accounts forward, and GoDaddy have even been
caught by that, so maintaining a LTS version of PHP5.2 is the lesser evil
...
Windows 2000 is supposed to be dead, but *I* still have sites reliant on
it
because the code and hardware is unsupported in even XP. Saying
something is dead only works if there is an affordable way of moving
forward
;)
--
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 Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dear List -
My mysqli extension seems to have gone away.
$host = 'localhost';
$user = 'root';
$password = 'SdR3908';
echo "hello2<br />";
var_dump(function_exists('mysqli_connect'));// this returns boo(false)
$db = 'Store';
$cxn = mysqli_connect($host,$user,$password,$db);
I tried to reinstall -
rosenberg:/home/ethan# apt-get install php5-common libapache2-mod-php5
php5-cli
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
libapache2-mod-php5 is already the newest version.
libapache2-mod-php5 set to manually installed.
php5-cli is already the newest version.
php5-cli set to manually installed.
php5-common is already the newest version.
php5-common set to manually installed.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
It did not help.
TIA
Ethan
--- End Message ---
