[PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3.9RC3 and PHP 5.4.0RC3
Hello Internals, We followed our 14 days cycle for release candidates, so today is release day. The PHP team announces the availability of the third release candidates of PHP 5.3.9 and PHP 5.4.0 today: You can find the packages for PHP 5.3.9RC3 here: http://downloads.php.net/johannes and respectively for PHP 5.4.0RC3: http://downloads.php.net/stas The Windows team provides windows binaries for both releases. The binaries are a little bit delayed, and will available within the next hours. As always you find them at: http://windows.php.net/qa/ Please ensure that the releases are solid and all things behave as expected! Test these release candidates against your code base and report any problems you encounter or successful tests you've run. The fourth release candidates will be released on December 22. regards, Johannes, Stas and David -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is Bug #34972 (no non-blocking on STDIN on Windows) going to be fixed?
The usage is very limited as well, for STDIN that is. For other streams, non blocking works perfectly. Also last time I checked it was not possible to do it without some heavy changes, it can't be done in 5.3 or 5.4 as of now (respectively stable and release candidate phases). I'd to say that async IO, event and other similar things are much higher in my todos list. On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > It is non-trivial to implement on Windows. It is more of a feature request > than a bug. UNIX supports non-blocking stdin natively, Windows doesn't. A > Windows guy would need to write a compatibility layer to get this to work and > we don't have very many Windows guys around. > > -Rasmus > > On Dec 8, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Jonathan Chan wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Is there any intention to fix Bug #34972 >> (https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=34972)? It was first submitted six >> years ago, but the bug still seems to exist. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is Bug #34972 (no non-blocking on STDIN on Windows) going to be fixed?
It is non-trivial to implement on Windows. It is more of a feature request than a bug. UNIX supports non-blocking stdin natively, Windows doesn't. A Windows guy would need to write a compatibility layer to get this to work and we don't have very many Windows guys around. -Rasmus On Dec 8, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Jonathan Chan wrote: > Hello, > > Is there any intention to fix Bug #34972 > (https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=34972)? It was first submitted six > years ago, but the bug still seems to exist. > > Thanks. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Phalanger
hi, As a windows developer and user, and core developer of PHP as well as contributor to many OSS projects to help them to support windows better and keep the code portable, I'd to say that to base a project on .net is a wrong start to begin with. A very wrong one. And I really like .net, I only won't ever consider it for anything where I need full control (memory, performance, cross platform, etc.). The same goes for Java btw. It is also possible to write extension for .net module using C++/CLI very easily. I have done that a couple of times already (some are public on github too btw, like the MS Chart module). As of phalanger, to me it is and remains a toy project, nice experiment but the way to go is to stick to C (eventually C++ but there may have even more people against it than .net ;-). On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > Don't take this the wrong way, I'm merely trying to provoke your thoughts a > bit with this e-mail! :-) > > Has it occurred to anyone, to abandon the official PHP codebase and adopt > Phalanger instead? > > Some convincing (to me) points: > > - Phalanger runs on Mono, meaning similar platform-reach as PHP. (but > eliminating most platform-specific implementations.) > > - It's fast. (probably fast enough to mostly eliminate the need for native > extensions in general.) > > - The community would be able to write modules/extensions in PHP or other > CLR languages. > > - It's secure. (not that C/FFI PHP extensions tend not to be trustworthy, > but they do tend to come from a relatively small group of authors.) > > - Access to more languages means a much bigger community who can contribute > extensions and core patches. > > - Access to existing CLR codebases means more third-party libraries can be > readily integrated without writing and maintainting C/FFI wrappers. > > - The codebase is new, clean and modern (it's not dragging around a lot of > legacy baggage.) > > - Fully take advantage of new 64-bit hardware (vector computations and > larger address space) in all aspects. (core, extensions, PHP scripts). > > I'm not going to try to sell you on the fact that the integration with the > Windows world is tighter in Phalanger than in PHP - but it is a point that > carries considerable weight to many businesses. > > People I know have had a tendency to view Phalanger as "PHP for Windows" - > it's really not. It's PHP for CLR - and CLR is not (only) Windows. And it > is readily available on most modern operating systems with good support for > various hardware platforms. > > Now, before you start flaming me - I'd love to hear precisely why you're > eager to hang on to the C codebase. What are the benefits of the C codebase > over Phalanger? > > I understand the licensing may be an issue. It may be the argument that > outweighs everything else, but I'm curious to hear what else would keep you > from moving to Phalanger? > > Thanks! > > - Rasmus Schultz -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Is Bug #34972 (no non-blocking on STDIN on Windows) going to be fixed?
Hello, Is there any intention to fix Bug #34972 (https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=34972)? It was first submitted six years ago, but the bug still seems to exist. Thanks. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Phalanger
On 12/08/2011 03:53 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > This is a complete non-starter. The bulk of PHP users are on > non-Windows, especially Linux, and Mono performance on Linux is really > not good. Last time I checked it was an order of magnitude slower on > Linux compared to the same hardware running Windows. Granted that was > quite a few years ago now and I assume it is no longer 10x slower. > Perhaps it is up to 4x or even 2x slower. Here are some more recent numbers to back that up: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/RuntimePerformance.aspx Basically what you are suggesting is that we replace the Green bar there with the Grey one. Note that lower is better. This does show that Mono performance is starting to approach .Net performance, at least for this benchmark, but it still isn't there. And if you look through the various benchmarks you will see that native C/C++ code is 5-10x faster than the same code running under Mono. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Phalanger
On 12/08/2011 03:28 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > Don't take this the wrong way, I'm merely trying to provoke your thoughts a > bit with this e-mail! :-) > > Has it occurred to anyone, to abandon the official PHP codebase and adopt > Phalanger instead? > > Some convincing (to me) points: > > - Phalanger runs on Mono, meaning similar platform-reach as PHP. (but > eliminating most platform-specific implementations.) > > - It's fast. (probably fast enough to mostly eliminate the need for native > extensions in general.) > > - The community would be able to write modules/extensions in PHP or other > CLR languages. > > - It's secure. (not that C/FFI PHP extensions tend not to be trustworthy, > but they do tend to come from a relatively small group of authors.) > > - Access to more languages means a much bigger community who can contribute > extensions and core patches. > > - Access to existing CLR codebases means more third-party libraries can be > readily integrated without writing and maintainting C/FFI wrappers. > > - The codebase is new, clean and modern (it's not dragging around a lot of > legacy baggage.) > > - Fully take advantage of new 64-bit hardware (vector computations and > larger address space) in all aspects. (core, extensions, PHP scripts). > > I'm not going to try to sell you on the fact that the integration with the > Windows world is tighter in Phalanger than in PHP - but it is a point that > carries considerable weight to many businesses. > > People I know have had a tendency to view Phalanger as "PHP for Windows" - > it's really not. It's PHP for CLR - and CLR is not (only) Windows. And it > is readily available on most modern operating systems with good support for > various hardware platforms. > > Now, before you start flaming me - I'd love to hear precisely why you're > eager to hang on to the C codebase. What are the benefits of the C codebase > over Phalanger? > > I understand the licensing may be an issue. It may be the argument that > outweighs everything else, but I'm curious to hear what else would keep you > from moving to Phalanger? This is a complete non-starter. The bulk of PHP users are on non-Windows, especially Linux, and Mono performance on Linux is really not good. Last time I checked it was an order of magnitude slower on Linux compared to the same hardware running Windows. Granted that was quite a few years ago now and I assume it is no longer 10x slower. Perhaps it is up to 4x or even 2x slower. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Phalanger
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm merely trying to provoke your thoughts a bit with this e-mail! :-) Has it occurred to anyone, to abandon the official PHP codebase and adopt Phalanger instead? Some convincing (to me) points: - Phalanger runs on Mono, meaning similar platform-reach as PHP. (but eliminating most platform-specific implementations.) - It's fast. (probably fast enough to mostly eliminate the need for native extensions in general.) - The community would be able to write modules/extensions in PHP or other CLR languages. - It's secure. (not that C/FFI PHP extensions tend not to be trustworthy, but they do tend to come from a relatively small group of authors.) - Access to more languages means a much bigger community who can contribute extensions and core patches. - Access to existing CLR codebases means more third-party libraries can be readily integrated without writing and maintainting C/FFI wrappers. - The codebase is new, clean and modern (it's not dragging around a lot of legacy baggage.) - Fully take advantage of new 64-bit hardware (vector computations and larger address space) in all aspects. (core, extensions, PHP scripts). I'm not going to try to sell you on the fact that the integration with the Windows world is tighter in Phalanger than in PHP - but it is a point that carries considerable weight to many businesses. People I know have had a tendency to view Phalanger as "PHP for Windows" - it's really not. It's PHP for CLR - and CLR is not (only) Windows. And it is readily available on most modern operating systems with good support for various hardware platforms. Now, before you start flaming me - I'd love to hear precisely why you're eager to hang on to the C codebase. What are the benefits of the C codebase over Phalanger? I understand the licensing may be an issue. It may be the argument that outweighs everything else, but I'm curious to hear what else would keep you from moving to Phalanger? Thanks! - Rasmus Schultz
Re: [PHP-DEV] Tokyo/Kyoto Cabinet in 5.4
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Michael Maclean wrote: > On 30/09/11 12:37, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > >> Preferably replace it with Kyoto Cabinet support I suppose. > > > I added the TC support initially, so I can look at replacing it over the > weekend. Whats the status on this? -Hannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-DOC] missing docs for 5.4
Slightly off topic - but this is definitely a part of the PHP project I'm qualified to help (documentation writing) with in some capacity. Who would I get in contact with to get an assignment? Just the PHP docs list or someone specific? (I'm subbed to the internals list, I dunno if I'm subbed to the docs list but the original message was crossposted to both and I'm following suit). On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Александр Москалёв wrote: > Also missing JSON_BIGINT_AS_STRING . > > With regards, Alexander Moskaliov > ir...@irker.net >
