Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension...pecl it

[Jason Greene]

This extension does not belongs in PECL. It is fully platform
compatible, all other languages offer this functionality, it is actively
maintained (by me), and it will be marked stable by version 4.3

-Jason


n Mon, 2002-09-09 at 18:13, Shane Caraveo wrote:
> Dan Kalowsky wrote:
> > Because the user can see how active such functionality is by looking at
> > the CVS logs, and doing a search on php-dev conversations.
> 
> Sorry, but that's a copout.  It expects way to much of the user.  If 
> it's going to remain experimental, OR the api is going to continue to 
> change in incompatible ways, it shouldn't be part of the standard PHP 
> distribution.  We have a means to distribute extensions outside of PHP 
> now, IMO experimental extensions should not be allowed into the core PHP 
> distribuation any longer.  PECL it.
> 
> Shane
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PHP Development Mailing List 
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension...pecl it

[Shane Caraveo]

Dan Kalowsky wrote:
> Because the user can see how active such functionality is by looking at
> the CVS logs, and doing a search on php-dev conversations.

Sorry, but that's a copout.  It expects way to much of the user.  If 
it's going to remain experimental, OR the api is going to continue to 
change in incompatible ways, it shouldn't be part of the standard PHP 
distribution.  We have a means to distribute extensions outside of PHP 
now, IMO experimental extensions should not be allowed into the core PHP 
distribuation any longer.  PECL it.

Shane



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Mike Robinson]

Dan Kalowsky writes:

> Not to continue a "flame war", but this is Open Source, and it is
> done on free time.

"Open Source" is a philosophy.
It shouldn't be an excuse.
Nothing prevents us from treating people with patience and courtesy.

Except of course bad manners and bad attitude.

> Because you the user feels you'd like to use such
> functionality it's not typically a concern for the developers.  Often
> times this functionality is added to make their own lives easier, or
> to try an experiment with something.  Take a look at the iD software
> policy: it'll be ready when it's ready.  Thats all there is to it :)

Like so.

Regards
Mike Robinson






-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[NAIK,ROSHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)]

Sure (as i did reckon most of what you said in my email) but i dont think
there is anything wrong in any user coming out and asking the community what
their intentions are going forward. CVS only reflects the situation so far. 

For example: In our case we deliver PHP as part of our free HP Apache
distribution and we get requests from end users asking for so and so PHP
extension. It is natural for us (or anybody like us) to come back to this
mailing list and ask similar questions to get an idea of where things may be
headed. 

Perhaps it might be nicer to reckon the CURRENT absence of any active
development/plans by the ones in the know, rather than flaming over it and
giving out bogus estimates to users casually inquiring about it. 
After all, most of us users (hopefully) realize that there is only finite
amount of work that can be done by developers in their free time.

As a suggestion : It may be a good idea to reconsider the bundling (and
continued bundling in the future) of extensions that are unlikely to get out
of expermimental stage due to lack developer activity and/or interest for
such extended periods.   Else such questions and flame replies simply become
more common and benefit no one.


--Roshan



> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Kalowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 2:49 PM
> To: NAIK,ROSHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension
> 
> 
> Because the user can see how active such functionality is by 
> looking at
> the CVS logs, and doing a search on php-dev conversations.
> 
> While the authors have decided to mark it experimental doesn't mean it
> will ever not be experimental.
> 
> Not to continue a "flame war", but this is Open Source, and 
> it is done on
> free time.  Because you the user feels you'd like to use such
> functionality it's not typically a concern for the developers.  Often
> times this functionality is added to make their own lives 
> easier, or to
> try an experiment with something.  Take a look at the iD 
> software policy:
> it'll be ready when it's ready.  Thats all there is to it :)
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, NAIK,ROSHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
> 
> >
> > >
> > > Between 15 days and 15 months.
> >
> > Looking at the CVS its been 19 months since the EXPERMENTAL 
> file was last
> > modified for sockets.
> >
> > No offense intended but, sometimes people dont seem to like 
> to be asked such
> > "obvious" questions by users. I realize that people in open 
> source are not
> > working for money but this attitude may be a little extreme.
> >
> > The obvious meaning behind the question was "is this piece 
> under active
> > development?".
> > Users like to know such things so that they can have 
> reasonable expectations
> > from what they are using or make alternate plans. And this 
> list is the most
> > reasonable place for asking something like that.
> >
> > Bundling functionality into the distribution and tagging them as
> > experimental...its a way of giving end users hope to see 
> something concrete
> > sooner or later...so why flame over it when the user comes 
> back asking  "how
> > it is doing" ?
> >
> > --Roshan
> >
> >
> >
> 
> >---<
> Dan Kalowsky  "I'll walk a thousand miles just
> http://www.deadmime.org/~dank  to slip this skin."
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  - "Streets of Philadelphia",
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Bruce Springstreen
> 

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Dan Kalowsky]

Because the user can see how active such functionality is by looking at
the CVS logs, and doing a search on php-dev conversations.

While the authors have decided to mark it experimental doesn't mean it
will ever not be experimental.

Not to continue a "flame war", but this is Open Source, and it is done on
free time.  Because you the user feels you'd like to use such
functionality it's not typically a concern for the developers.  Often
times this functionality is added to make their own lives easier, or to
try an experiment with something.  Take a look at the iD software policy:
it'll be ready when it's ready.  Thats all there is to it :)


On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, NAIK,ROSHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:

>
> >
> > Between 15 days and 15 months.
>
> Looking at the CVS its been 19 months since the EXPERMENTAL file was last
> modified for sockets.
>
> No offense intended but, sometimes people dont seem to like to be asked such
> "obvious" questions by users. I realize that people in open source are not
> working for money but this attitude may be a little extreme.
>
> The obvious meaning behind the question was "is this piece under active
> development?".
> Users like to know such things so that they can have reasonable expectations
> from what they are using or make alternate plans. And this list is the most
> reasonable place for asking something like that.
>
> Bundling functionality into the distribution and tagging them as
> experimental...its a way of giving end users hope to see something concrete
> sooner or later...so why flame over it when the user comes back asking  "how
> it is doing" ?
>
> --Roshan
>
>
>

>---<
Dan Kalowsky"I'll walk a thousand miles just
http://www.deadmime.org/~dankto slip this skin."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]- "Streets of Philadelphia",
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Bruce Springstreen


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[NAIK,ROSHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)]

> 
> Between 15 days and 15 months.

Looking at the CVS its been 19 months since the EXPERMENTAL file was last
modified for sockets.

No offense intended but, sometimes people dont seem to like to be asked such
"obvious" questions by users. I realize that people in open source are not
working for money but this attitude may be a little extreme. 

The obvious meaning behind the question was "is this piece under active
development?".
Users like to know such things so that they can have reasonable expectations
from what they are using or make alternate plans. And this list is the most
reasonable place for asking something like that. 

Bundling functionality into the distribution and tagging them as
experimental...its a way of giving end users hope to see something concrete
sooner or later...so why flame over it when the user comes back asking  "how
it is doing" ?

--Roshan


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[derick]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, NAIK,ROSHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:

> 
> And exactly how long is it expected to continue to stay  EXPERIMENTAL ? 

Between 15 days and 15 months.

Derick

---
 Did I help you?   http://www.derickrethans.nl/link.php?url=giftlist
 Frequent ranting: http://www.derickrethans.nl/
---
 PHP: Scripting the Web - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All your branches are belong to me!
SRM: Script Running Machine - www.vl-srm.net
---


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[NAIK,ROSHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)]

And exactly how long is it expected to continue to stay  EXPERIMENTAL ? 

--Roshan

> -Original Message-
> From: Wez Furlong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:31 PM
> To: Brian Lalor
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension
> 
> 
> Which part of "EXPERIMENTAL" in the docs at
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.socket-select.php
> don't you understand?
> 
> If you're so desparate to have things cemented, write a patch,
> post it here and we'll commit it.
> If you don't have the skills, you might consider offering those that
> do some positive incentive to do it for you.
> 
> --Wez.
> 
> On 09/06/02, "Brian Lalor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do the maintainers of the PHP sockets extension ever intend 
> to get their act
> > together and cement the API, or are people who need this 
> functionality going
> > to be forced to rewrite their code everytime there's a new 
> point-release of
> > PHP?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Wez Furlong]

Which part of "EXPERIMENTAL" in the docs at
http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.socket-select.php
don't you understand?

If you're so desparate to have things cemented, write a patch,
post it here and we'll commit it.
If you don't have the skills, you might consider offering those that
do some positive incentive to do it for you.

--Wez.

On 09/06/02, "Brian Lalor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do the maintainers of the PHP sockets extension ever intend to get their act
> together and cement the API, or are people who need this functionality going
> to be forced to rewrite their code everytime there's a new point-release of
> PHP?



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

[Jason Greene]

On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 01:40, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Hey Jason,
> 
> On 20 Feb 2002, Jason Greene wrote:
> 
> > Instead of just committing a gigantic patch to solve these problems, and
> > redefine the extensions behavior, I decided to open a thread for
> > discussion on how I intend to solve all the problems.
> >
> > My solution does involve modifying pieces of the API, which causes BC
> > concerns. I do think about these things, and I really think we should
> > stabilize and finalize this module, as we have already radically changed
> > the API once before.
> 
> Just fix it so that it is both consistent and that the extension has a
> clean API. I wouldn't worry about BC here, cause the extension is
> experimental (with a big message in the manual).

Thats what I was hoping : )

> 
> > Timeline & Stabilization
> > =
> >
> > I would like to fix all of this by 4.2.X. I propose that we then mark
> > the extension as stable, and freeze the API.
> >
> >
> > Please send your feedback on your thoughts and concerns on these
> > changes.
> 
> Sounds all sane to me. Good luck!

Great!!, Well provided I don't get any negative feedback on these, I
will start right away!!!

-Jason


> Derick
> 
> -
> PHP: Scripting the Web - www.php.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  SRM: Site Resource Manager - www.vl-srm.net
> -
> 
> 
> -- 
> PHP Development Mailing List 
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

[Derick Rethans]

Hey Jason,

On 20 Feb 2002, Jason Greene wrote:

> Instead of just committing a gigantic patch to solve these problems, and
> redefine the extensions behavior, I decided to open a thread for
> discussion on how I intend to solve all the problems.
>
> My solution does involve modifying pieces of the API, which causes BC
> concerns. I do think about these things, and I really think we should
> stabilize and finalize this module, as we have already radically changed
> the API once before.

Just fix it so that it is both consistent and that the extension has a
clean API. I wouldn't worry about BC here, cause the extension is
experimental (with a big message in the manual).

> Timeline & Stabilization
> =
>
> I would like to fix all of this by 4.2.X. I propose that we then mark
> the extension as stable, and freeze the API.
>
>
> Please send your feedback on your thoughts and concerns on these
> changes.

Sounds all sane to me. Good luck!

Derick

-
PHP: Scripting the Web - www.php.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 SRM: Site Resource Manager - www.vl-srm.net
-


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Sterling Hughes]

Stig Venaas wrote:

> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:48:06AM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> 
>>Well, it probably could be done anyway (abstract it another step). 
>>However, I don't see it really being that beneficial.  The socket 
>>functions provide *low level* access to the system socket features. 
>>There's no real point in abstracting that (I think it gets a bit to 
>>confusing if you do) any further.
>>
> 
> The only thing I would want, is that the type of the socket is stored
> in some internal datastructure. That is if the socket is PF_INET,
> PF_INET6 or PF_LOCAL. The old code and maybe yours, used getsockname()
> to check the type, but you can't really trust getsockname() to get the
> appropriate info unless the socket has been bound. I've checked this on
> a few systems some months ago.
> 



that shouldn't be a problem.

-Sterling






-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Stig Venaas]

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:48:06AM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Well, it probably could be done anyway (abstract it another step). 
> However, I don't see it really being that beneficial.  The socket 
> functions provide *low level* access to the system socket features. 
> There's no real point in abstracting that (I think it gets a bit to 
> confusing if you do) any further.

The only thing I would want, is that the type of the socket is stored
in some internal datastructure. That is if the socket is PF_INET,
PF_INET6 or PF_LOCAL. The old code and maybe yours, used getsockname()
to check the type, but you can't really trust getsockname() to get the
appropriate info unless the socket has been bound. I've checked this on
a few systems some months ago.

Stig

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Sterling Hughes]

Daniel Beulshausen wrote:

> At 21:23 16.05.2001 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure that the sockets extension would benefit from php_streams as
>> much as php_streams would benefit from the sockets extension, if you see
>> what I mean.
>>
>> I would like to see it using php_streams, as that would result in PHP 
>> being
>> much more flexible for the person coding in PHP; they needn't worry about
>> the type of the file handle they pass to any function.
>>
>> To integrate php_streams properly, ext/sockets should converge with 
>> fsock.c
>> and use the same underlying sockets implemented as php_streams (it's not
>> too much work).
>>
>> I think it's a good idea to get it done.
> 
> 
> i had a quick look at it, but i think it can't be done, due to the 
> simple fact that under windows socket descriptors are not file 
> descriptors like under unix.
> it could work under NT (file I/O is similiar to unix), but not under the 
> 9.x family.
> (but maybe i'm missing somehing)
> 


Well, it probably could be done anyway (abstract it another step). 
However, I don't see it really being that beneficial.  The socket 
functions provide *low level* access to the system socket features. 
There's no real point in abstracting that (I think it gets a bit to 
confusing if you do) any further.


-Sterling


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Daniel Beulshausen]

At 21:23 16.05.2001 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote:
>I'm not sure that the sockets extension would benefit from php_streams as
>much as php_streams would benefit from the sockets extension, if you see
>what I mean.
>
>I would like to see it using php_streams, as that would result in PHP being
>much more flexible for the person coding in PHP; they needn't worry about
>the type of the file handle they pass to any function.
>
>To integrate php_streams properly, ext/sockets should converge with fsock.c
>and use the same underlying sockets implemented as php_streams (it's not
>too much work).
>
>I think it's a good idea to get it done.

i had a quick look at it, but i think it can't be done, due to the simple 
fact that under windows socket descriptors are not file descriptors like 
under unix.
it could work under NT (file I/O is similiar to unix), but not under the 
9.x family.
(but maybe i'm missing somehing)

daniel

/*--
daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Andi Gutmans]

At 10:34 PM 5/16/2001 +0200, Daniel Beulshausen wrote:
>At 22:49 16.05.2001 +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>Daniel,
>>
>>Would it make sense to try to integrate the new php_streams into this 
>>extension?
>>It might give php_streams a push and I'm sure Wez would work with you 
>>fixing any remaining issues.
>>It would be a nice test bed.
>>What do you think?
>>
>>About backwards compatibility, without having read the code it sounds as 
>>if you're doing "the right thing" as opposed to the old module. Do any of 
>>the new function names overlap with the old ones? I'm not quite sure how 
>>we should tackle backwards compatibility here.
>
>forgot to answer that, no the new function names don't overlap, 
>thereprefixed i.e.
>socket -> socket_create
>fd_dealloc -> socket_fd_free
>create_listen_sock -> socket_create_listen

The names sound good. That's for sure :)

Andi


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Wez Furlong]

I don't appear to have seen/received the rest of this thread,
so please pardon any mistakes in advance...

On 2001-05-16 20:49:30, "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it make sense to try to integrate the new php_streams into this 
> extension?
> It might give php_streams a push and I'm sure Wez would work with you 
> fixing any remaining issues.
> It would be a nice test bed.
> What do you think?

I'm not sure that the sockets extension would benefit from php_streams as
much as php_streams would benefit from the sockets extension, if you see
what I mean.

I would like to see it using php_streams, as that would result in PHP being
much more flexible for the person coding in PHP; they needn't worry about
the type of the file handle they pass to any function.

To integrate php_streams properly, ext/sockets should converge with fsock.c
and use the same underlying sockets implemented as php_streams (it's not
too much work).

I think it's a good idea to get it done.

--Wez.


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Daniel Beulshausen]

At 22:49 16.05.2001 +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>Daniel,
>
>Would it make sense to try to integrate the new php_streams into this 
>extension?
>It might give php_streams a push and I'm sure Wez would work with you 
>fixing any remaining issues.
>It would be a nice test bed.
>What do you think?
>
>About backwards compatibility, without having read the code it sounds as 
>if you're doing "the right thing" as opposed to the old module. Do any of 
>the new function names overlap with the old ones? I'm not quite sure how 
>we should tackle backwards compatibility here.

forgot to answer that, no the new function names don't overlap, 
thereprefixed i.e.
socket -> socket_create
fd_dealloc -> socket_fd_free
create_listen_sock -> socket_create_listen
...

daniel

/*--
daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Daniel Beulshausen]

At 04:01 16.05.2001 -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>I've been meaning for a while to do this, so yes, that's perfectly ok.
>
>I don't quite understand "the return values of most functions had to be 
>changed because win32 has a completely different error handling".  Can you 
>elaborate a bit more.

WSAGetlastError() returns completly different errno's, thus i think it's 
not a good idea to use them as return values (and for the users to rely on 
them).

>Also, strerror() is to my knowledge, available on Win32 systems (check out 
>FormatMessage()).
>
>*ouch*
>
>I WILL NOT DO WINDOWS PROGRAMMING
>I WILL NOT DO WINDOWS PROGRAMMING
>...
>
>
>>as that together would already break old scripts i've also renamed the 
>>functions to (hopefully) go with the standards.
>
>
>The naming looks pretty good.  It seems like most people want this (I 
>don't, but, ah well.)

great.

daniel

/*--
daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Daniel Beulshausen]

At 22:49 16.05.2001 +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>Daniel,
>
>Would it make sense to try to integrate the new php_streams into this 
>extension?
>It might give php_streams a push and I'm sure Wez would work with you 
>fixing any remaining issues.
>It would be a nice test bed.
>What do you think?

that surely would be a great idea, just didn't had the time to look at them 
yet.
i'll do that tomorrow :)

>About backwards compatibility, without having read the code it sounds as 
>if you're doing "the right thing" as opposed to the old module. Do any of 
>the new function names overlap with the old ones? I'm not quite sure how 
>we should tackle backwards compatibility here.

i think the same, but i'm pretty sure that it'll break alot sockets scripts.

daniel

/*--
daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Sterling Hughes]

Daniel Beulshausen wrote:

> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> i've updated the sockets extension so that it's usable under win32 as 
> well, however it's incompatible to the "old extension" for some reasons 
> (thats why i want some feedback):
> sockets fd under win32 are usigned, the previous approach of returning 
> long's and check for < 0 wouldn't have worked, thus it's been converted 
> to use resources (which is also cleaner behaviour IMO).
> the return values of most functions had to be changed, because win32 has 
> an complete different error handling.
> 


I've been meaning for a while to do this, so yes, that's perfectly ok.

I don't quite understand "the return values of most functions had to be 
changed because win32 has a completely different error handling".  Can 
you elaborate a bit more.

Also, strerror() is to my knowledge, available on Win32 systems (check 
out FormatMessage()).

*ouch*

I WILL NOT DO WINDOWS PROGRAMMING
I WILL NOT DO WINDOWS PROGRAMMING
...


> as that together would already break old scripts i've also renamed the 
> functions to (hopefully) go with the standards.
> 


The naming looks pretty good.  It seems like most people want this (I 
don't, but, ah well.)


Nice Job!

-Sterling



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] sockets extension

[Andi Gutmans]

Daniel,

Would it make sense to try to integrate the new php_streams into this 
extension?
It might give php_streams a push and I'm sure Wez would work with you 
fixing any remaining issues.
It would be a nice test bed.
What do you think?

About backwards compatibility, without having read the code it sounds as if 
you're doing "the right thing" as opposed to the old module. Do any of the 
new function names overlap with the old ones? I'm not quite sure how we 
should tackle backwards compatibility here.

Andi

At 09:28 PM 5/16/2001 +0200, Daniel Beulshausen wrote:


>hi,
>
>i've updated the sockets extension so that it's usable under win32 as 
>well, however it's incompatible to the "old extension" for some reasons 
>(thats why i want some feedback):
>sockets fd under win32 are usigned, the previous approach of returning 
>long's and check for < 0 wouldn't have worked, thus it's been converted to 
>use resources (which is also cleaner behaviour IMO).
>the return values of most functions had to be changed, because win32 has 
>an complete different error handling.
>
>as that together would already break old scripts i've also renamed the 
>functions to (hopefully) go with the standards.
>
>daniel
>
>/*--
>daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de
>
>
>--
>PHP Development Mailing List 
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]