-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Glenn,
'return $this' is perfectly acceptable and indeed very common code. It
works fine for me in 5.1.4 - you might like to report a bug if you can
reproduce a segfault...
What is being referred to here is things like 'abstract static'
functions
ok, sure. I'll be working to get more information on this one. I should
have said that the line of code where it crashes is called constantly.
It's part of a parent class and is almost the most called code in the
system. It's only when it's called via the SOAP interface for a
particular SOAP
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Pierre wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:26:42 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lukas Kahwe Smith) wrote:
I just want to say once again that all hell is going to break loose
once we release 5.2.0 as stable thanks to the various fatal errors we
are adding for perfectly working
Seems like I missed that whole thread.
I don't quite understand what we have to gain from dissallowing overriding
static methods and/or abstract static methods. It's not really in the PHP
spirit.
Making it E_STRICT doesn't solve the situation because it will tell people
it's not an ok thing to do,
On 10/20/2006 08:35 AM, Glenn Richmond wrote:
Hi all,
I've just been implementing a memcache session handler that allows for
multiple servers in a cluster to store their session data in a central
place. I had to make the changes in the PHP source as the user session
handler doesn't quite work
Hi Antony,
This isn't actually part of the PECL project as I understand it. The
PECL memcache project provides a PHP interface to using a memcache
server. What I've developed is a memcache session handler that can be
used via the php.ini file by:
session.handler = memcache
As such, it's
Just something I noticed while compiling PHP 5.2.0RC6 on Windows. It looks
like it's been like this since the dawn of time, so it's not a release
blocker. The attached patch makes --with-apache-includes and
--with-apache-lib work as documented.
Index: sapi/apache/config.w32
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
The reason 'abstract static' makes no sense is because static methods
are bound to the class they are defined in. Inheritance rules do not apply.
Therefore a static method that is defined abstract would theoretically
never be able to be
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Seems like I missed that whole thread.
I don't quite understand what we have to gain from dissallowing overriding
static methods and/or abstract static methods. It's not really in the PHP
spirit.
Making it E_STRICT doesn't solve the situation because it will tell people
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
I'm sure there are more examples of how PHP 5.2 and newer will enforce a
different spirit that smells more off a static programming language.
and these changes are being made in a minor release!
its funny that ext/mysql is supposed to stay around for BC reasons even
On 10/20/2006 12:49 PM, Glenn Richmond wrote:
Hi Antony,
This isn't actually part of the PECL project as I understand it. The
PECL memcache project provides a PHP interface to using a memcache
server. What I've developed is a memcache session handler that can be
used via the php.ini file by:
ok, sure - I just made this assumption because there's an sqlite session
handler in there (from what I can see) that I wouldn't have considered
standard. I'll discuss with the PECL developers.
Glenn.
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 10/20/2006 12:49 PM, Glenn Richmond wrote:
Hi Antony,
This isn't
Hi Glenn,
Glenn Richmond wrote:
This isn't actually part of the PECL project as I understand it. The
PECL memcache project provides a PHP interface to using a memcache
server. What I've developed is a memcache session handler that can be
used via the php.ini file by:
session.handler =
Hi Andreas,
Thanks for the suggestion - looks like a nice way to separate it from
the main source tree. I'll look at this as an option also :) I think the
one nice thing of integrating with the PECL memcache project would be
re-using the memcache library backend, but will see how we go.
Regards,
On 20/10/06, Jasper Bryant-Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The argument is that we should not unnecessarily break these people's
code just because it makes no sense. Personally, I don't buy into this
argument. Perhaps if their code breaks and there is a good explanation
in the error message,
Richard Quadling wrote:
Having an error for an upgrade and no explanation as to why it is now
an error is a pain as you don't know the consequences of changing the
code.
And the reason many providers are still running PHP4 and refuse to
provide PHP5 is partly wrapped in that statement.
I agree. Aside from making things difficult, these extra checks are
using up CPU cycles when we don't otherwise care about the problems
that are being highlighted.
I've been out of the loop for a couple of months, so I'm really
surprised that we've gotten all the way into late RC with such a
Hello, Thank you!! Response.
I questioned to the pear-group what cannot login to CSV Server.
Hi Sakamoto-san
On 10/17/06, Sakamoto Kouichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Jesus-san
Thank you for the reply.
We had not (yet) received your account request. When did you fill the
form for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Windows build is available at:
http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-5.2.0RC6-Win32.zip
(2c9b099684bf12e13a3fd34ee5e751a9)
http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-5.2.0RC6-win32-installer.msi
(e1ac255f9073fa9b4c2efeb7c466b945)
I proposed PEAR package, and accepted by PEPr.
The following links are the packages accepted:
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=441
And, I send CVS Account Request: kouichi66 at 2006/10/12.
But, I cannot login to CVS Server.
I want to know why cannot login.
-
Hello,
On 10/20/06, Sakamoto Kouichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I proposed PEAR package, and accepted by PEPr.
The following links are the packages accepted:
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=441
And, I send CVS Account Request: kouichi66 at 2006/10/12.
But, I cannot
+1 for reducing severity to E_STRICT
Greg
Wez Furlong wrote:
I agree. Aside from making things difficult, these extra checks are
using up CPU cycles when we don't otherwise care about the problems
that are being highlighted.
I've been out of the loop for a couple of months, so I'm really
On 20-Oct-06, at 4:58 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
I'm sure there are more examples of how PHP 5.2 and newer will
enforce a
different spirit that smells more off a static programming
language.
and these changes are being made in a minor release!
Minor releases
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
its funny that ext/mysql is supposed to stay around for BC reasons
even in PHP6, yet it has known unsolvable security issues.
Such as?
for example, it does not support the new more secure authentication
protocol.
regards,
Lukas
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
The check itself is done at compile time, so the CPU loss only
happens if you don't use an opcode cache, which means you probably
don't care much about the performance anyway :).
I definitely think we should keep the warning, but as you can tell
from my commit I do agree it should be
On 20-Oct-06, at 10:24 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
its funny that ext/mysql is supposed to stay around for BC
reasons even in PHP6, yet it has known unsolvable security issues.
Such as?
for example, it does not support the new more secure authentication
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
It is working code, its far from perfect given that it makes little
programatic sense and does break all known OO conventions.
Being allowed to break these known OO conventions is a major feature,
which has established PHP as a rapid prototyping language. Having some
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
It is working code, its far from perfect given that it makes little
programatic sense and does break all known OO conventions.
Being allowed to break these known OO conventions is a major
feature, which has established PHP as a rapid
Hello
On 10/20/06, Sakamoto Kouichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
A simple check on master.php.net will telly you that the account has
not been created :)
Thank you!!
Should I apply for the account again from http://www.php.net/cvs-php.php?
No need to request another account. I think
On 20-Oct-06, at 10:26 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
It is working code, its far from perfect given that it makes
little programatic sense and does break all known OO conventions.
Being allowed to break these known OO conventions is a major
feature, which has
On 20-Oct-06, at 10:29 AM, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Known OO conventions - how Java people do it
Its supposed to work that way - it works like that in Java
...
Java is just a single OO language out of many, http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming_language (here is a
nice
Hello,
Hello
On 10/20/06, Sakamoto Kouichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
A simple check on master.php.net will telly you that the account has
not been created :)
Thank you!!
Should I apply for the account again from http://www.php.net/cvs-php.php?
No need to request
Hello,
A simple check on master.php.net will telly you that the account has
not been created :)
Thank you!!
Should I apply for the account again from http://www.php.net/cvs-php.php?
Hello,
On 10/20/06, Sakamoto Kouichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I proposed PEAR package, and accepted by
On 20/10/06, Edin Kadribasic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
It is working code, its far from perfect given that it makes little
programatic sense and does break all known OO conventions.
Being allowed to break these known OO conventions is a major
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:43:05 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Jansen) wrote:
mjFri Oct 20 16:43:05 2006 UTC
Modified files:
/CVSROOT avail
Log:
* Text_Wiki karma for Michele Tomaiuolo and peardoc for some
recently added accounts.
Can you please first
Hello Lukas,
nonsense, there was no OO in PHP 4. We only had arrays with somehow
attached methods. No static, no abstract, no visibiity, no nothing. Then PHP
5.0 was done in a very bad rush and we made mistakes as we didn'T have time
to test it. Thus we had to quickly deliver 5.1. And even 5.1
Hello Ilia,
also an ISO/shared server will never be securewhatever you do and you can
make MySQL disaalow external connections. That basically means in those
scenarios you do not need any authentication at all and thus get better
speed as in more responses. Now is that bad?
best regards
marcus
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 23:05 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Lukas,
nonsense, there was no OO in PHP 4. We only had arrays with somehow
I think you're leaning too much on a specific definition of OO that
isn't necessarily shared by the rest of the cosmos, especially the
millions of PHP4
On 20-Oct-06, at 5:10 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Ilia,
also an ISO/shared server will never be securewhatever you do and
you can
make MySQL disaalow external connections. That basically means in
those
scenarios you do not need any authentication at all and thus get
better
speed
On 10/20/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One question I like to give to everyonedropping rules out of PHP. If you
want OO without rules, why do you use inheritance after all? Ever considered
OO might be the wrong programming paradigm for you :-)
It's not so much that we want OO
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 20-Oct-06, at 5:10 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Ilia,
also an ISO/shared server will never be securewhatever you do and
you can
make MySQL disaalow external connections. That basically means in those
scenarios you do not need any authentication at all and
41 matches
Mail list logo
