hi,
I would like to merge the patch from #61421 to all active branches (RMs as CC).
It is not a new function nor does it add new features but new
constants to support more algorithms for the signature verification.
Is it ok?
Cheers,
--
Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
Hi!
I would like to merge the patch from #61421 to all active branches (RMs as
CC).
It is not a new function nor does it add new features but new
constants to support more algorithms for the signature verification.
Don't see any problem with it.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 23:44 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I would like to merge the patch from #61421 to all active branches (RMs as
CC).
It is not a new function nor does it add new features but new
constants to support more algorithms for the signature verification.
Don't see
Hi all,
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:39:35PM +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
Adding Alex to the loop as his insight will be unvaluable in this thread.
Thank you for the chance to comment, and sorry that I did not do so yet.
I am busy with lots of other stuff. I'd appreciate it if you don't
hurry to
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Johannes Schlüter
johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 23:44 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I would like to merge the patch from #61421 to all active branches (RMs as
CC).
It is not a new function nor does it add new features but new
Hi, Anthony
Some questions coming up in my mind by reading this RFC:
* Will the value of the constant *PASSWORD_DEFAULT* remain unchanged
forever? Otherwise this lib, in my opinion, can cause big problems when
trying to port an existing system to a newer PHP-version.
* Is this a native version
hi!
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Simon Schick simonsimc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Anthony
Some questions coming up in my mind by reading this RFC:
* Will the value of the constant *PASSWORD_DEFAULT* remain unchanged
forever? Otherwise this lib, in my opinion, can cause big problems when
On 2012-06-26 07:22, Ben Ramsey wrote:
However, in Prototype.js and Underscore.js, pluck seems behave more like
array_map() in PHP:
http://api.prototypejs.org/language/Enumerable/prototype/pluck/
http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/#pluck
Nevertheless, it would technically have the
Simon,
* Will the value of the constant PASSWORD_DEFAULT remain unchanged forever?
Otherwise this lib, in my opinion, can cause big problems when trying to
port an existing system to a newer PHP-version.
No. That's why it's a separate constant. As newer, stronger hashing
options become
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
Makes sense to me. So should I do this? Remove warnings + add string
parameter for json_last_error?
I think its weird that the parameter is called $error_string and setting it
to true means returning an array.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
wrote:
Hi!
Makes sense to me. So should I do this? Remove warnings + add string
parameter for json_last_error?
I think its weird that the
Session Handler enhancement (create_sid)
I would like to propose a new feature to the current custom session
handling; the ability for a user defined function to be used when
generating the session id.
The reasons are as follows:
The Session Handler doesn't know when session_regenerate_id is
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon,
* Will the value of the constant PASSWORD_DEFAULT remain unchanged forever?
Otherwise this lib, in my opinion, can cause big problems when trying to
port an existing system to a newer PHP-version.
the
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@googlemail.com wrote:
Why not in the spirit of others have a new function json_last_error_msg() or
something similar?
I implemented it with json_last_error(true) returning just a string,
not an array. You can get the array using
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:37:50 +0200, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
That's exactly what I meant, having a changing default in this may
force code change during php updates. I'm not in favour of having such
default.
This would not require any code changes after updates.
As I
Alex,
Thank you for the chance to comment, and sorry that I did not do so yet.
I am busy with lots of other stuff. I'd appreciate it if you don't
hurry to implement this stuff too much, and I likely will comment on it
(that is, on the actual proposed API and implementation). Please keep
me
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:37:50 +0200, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
That's exactly what I meant, having a changing default in this may
force code change during php updates. I'm not in favour of
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@googlemail.com
wrote:
Why not in the spirit of others have a new function json_last_error_msg() or
something similar?
I implemented it with
Pierre,
As I understand, hashes computed with the old default method could still be
checked without any modification as the hash itself stores information about
the method.
That's only about one relatively simple use case where only PHP would
be involved or crypt-like implemenation. For any
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:24:39 +0200, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
escreveu:
Actually, now that I'm talking that out, perhaps the way to do it
would be to specify the default algorithm in a php.ini parameter
instead of the constant? That way the API can stay the same, but gives
people
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:24:39 +0200, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
escreveu:
Actually, now that I'm talking that out, perhaps the way to do it
would be to specify the default algorithm in a php.ini
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:43:35 +0200, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt
wrote:
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:24:39 +0200, Anthony Ferrara
ircmax...@gmail.com escreveu:
I don't see any advantage in adding complexity
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 07:51:38AM -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Note: _if_ you ask for a portable hash. What else should it do if you
ask it for just that?
That's a fair point. I guess since the adoption of 5.3, and the fact
that 5.2 is dead (yet alone php4), has me thinking that
Pierre,
Back then MD5 alone was all nice and shiny. So no, it is not possible
to be forward compatible.
By forward compatible, if you mean able to support any new algo, I
think this is forward compatible. The options array allows for new
implementations to implement whatever options they need.
Alexander,
BTW, what version of PHP introduced the === comparison operator?
I guess this should become the minimum version for phpass since this is
highly desirable to use.
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.comparison.php does not
say anything about that.
That's been in
Hello.
I personally think that using PASSWORD_DEFAULT for algorythm by default is
a bad idea. This should be defined by user in the code. Even worse if it is
defined by .ini setting - deploy to a remote server and realize that there
is a different .ini default that messes up everything. Lessons
Arvids,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello.
I personally think that using PASSWORD_DEFAULT for algorythm by default is a
bad idea. This should be defined by user in the code. Even worse if it is
defined by .ini setting - deploy to a remote
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
You described why people *may* have to, depending on the circumstances --
for instance, when interoperability in mixed environments is required. No
one is saying that relying on a default value is appropriate in
On that note I have only one request - please point me to the good article
that describes how this thing works (I would prefer one that at least tries
to explain in simple words) because at the moment i do not understand how
salt stored in the hash itself makes hash more secure than an unsalted
Hi,
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 11:25 -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/password_hash
Some comments on the error behavior part:
E_WARNING - When CRYPT is not included in core (was disabled
compile-time, or is listed in disabled_functions declaration)
Disabling a
PHP has a braceless syntax stretching back to its roots as a template
language. Frameworks which make use of php templating use these tags
quite frequently since it's harder to overlook an endif statement in a
sea of HTML tags than a brace. But what of endfunction?
I did some look ups and found
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Michael Morris dmgx.mich...@gmail.comwrote:
PHP has a braceless syntax stretching back to its roots as a template
language. Frameworks which make use of php templating use these tags
quite frequently since it's harder to overlook an endif statement in a
sea
On 06/26/2012 09:06 PM, OISHI Kazuo wrote:
Does this need an architecture specific SKIPIF? See the mention of
PHP_INT_SIZE on http://qa.php.net/write-test.php
Like this?
===
--SKIPIF--
?php
if (PHP_INT_SIZE != 8) die(skip this test
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Solar Designer so...@openwall.com wrote:
[...]
BTW, what version of PHP introduced the === comparison operator?
I guess this should become the minimum version for phpass since this is
highly desirable to use.
=== was added on Oct 19, 1999. php_version.h
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Galen Wright-Watson ww.ga...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Solar Designer so...@openwall.comwrote:
[...]
BTW, what version of PHP introduced the === comparison operator?
I guess this should become the minimum version for phpass since
On 27/06/12 18:13, Pierre Joye wrote:
Changing default value forces code change if you have to keep a given
hash, for one obvious side effect.
If you disagree or does not like the idea, that's all fine, but you
can't really say that it is not an argument (nothing to justify, this
is a draft
Arvids,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
On that note I have only one request - please point me to the good article
that describes how this thing works (I would prefer one that at least tries
to explain in simple words) because at the moment i do
Johannes,
Some comments on the error behavior part:
E_WARNING - When CRYPT is not included in core (was disabled
compile-time, or is listed in disabled_functions declaration)
Disabling a different function should have no effect. This is not
intuitive. If crypt is a dependency and is
So that next time this code changes any breakage is obvious.
Next time?
I had reported breakage for PHP 5.4.4 RC, but it wont fix and PHP
5.4.4 was released.
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=62097
I think the breakage exists in current version (PHP 5.4.4).
Any test you create for PHP 5.4
Pierre,
No, it is exactly one example out of many where changing values are a
real pain to deal with over the years. We should not have one.
While I completely see your point (and don't disagree with it in
isolation), I also see the counter point of making it easy for people
to use. Knowing
Hi,
I forgot to mention MySQL's query cache.
This change may have negative performance impact, since prepared
query is not cached and native prepared query may not be used by
other requests.
It would be nice to have an option keeping prepared statement
when PDOStatement destroyed.
Regards,
--
On 06/27/2012 08:45 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Hi,
I forgot to mention MySQL's query cache.
This change may have negative performance impact, since prepared
query is not cached and native prepared query may not be used by
other requests.
That's not really true anymore. There are some
42 matches
Mail list logo
