Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

On 14/10/14 15:20, Ben Ramsey wrote: > I suppose we could make a super global that returns that for us, but it’s > just as easy to > use the above. Additionally, you might not want to put the full body of the > request into > memory like that. You might rather read the stream only a few bytes at

Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

On 14/10/14 16:08, Mike Dugan wrote: > Did I just name a global variable? W00t! I guess Chris meant pecl_http's http\Env\Request::$form property. -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

On 14/10/14 17:02, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 14:53 +0100, Chris Wright wrote: > >> PECL HTTP v2 already has this, actually: >> http://devel-m6w6.rhcloud.com/mdref/http/Env/Request# >> >> Also, I think Mike got the naming right there as well, $form is the >> accurate descrip

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] UString

On 21 October 2014 14:35, Christian Schneider wrote: > Am 21.10.2014 um 09:06 schrieb Joe Watkins : > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring > > > > This is the result of work done by a few of us, we won't be > opening any > > vote in a fortnight. We have a long time before 7, there is no

Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

On 26/10/14 22:21, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> The only way to do this in PHP now is write a userland function that parses >> multipart form data, which is non-trivial. I had written one, but would > > It is true that PUT data need to be parsed, however it is not true you > have to implement

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Using objects as keys

On 27/10/14 08:09, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> I don't like this, mainly because it blocks a future direct use and storage >> of objects as keys in an array, i.e. what SplObjectStorage does. > > It does not. It just allows the objects to control how they are seen > when they are used as keys

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Using objects as keys

On 27/10/14 04:08, Will Fitch wrote: > >> On Oct 26, 2014, at 9:43 PM, Stas Malyshev >> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >>> I’m trying to wrap my head around a real-world use-case with >>> this. We have spl_object_hash, which effectively provides a >>> unique hash for >> >> This hash has nothing to do wit

Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

On 28/10/14 16:58, Ben Ramsey wrote: > >> On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Will Fitch wrote: >> >> 100% agree. Perhaps focusing on getting pecl/http v2 added as ext >> or core should be the real discussion: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http >> . > > > I woul

Re: [PHP-DEV] setcookie() minor BC break - fixes issue #67736

> On 02 11 2014, at 01:33, Rowan Collins wrote: > > On 01/11/2014 22:24, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> Perhaps it would be worth ditching any attempts to change setcookie() (just >> keep it around for backwards-compatibility), and to instead add a new >> function, function family, or indeed class fo

Re: [PHP-DEV] gzopen vs gzopen64

On 11/11/14 10:13, Matteo Beccati wrote: > On 11/11/2014 09:57, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: >> Hi Matteo >> >> 2014-11-11 9:30 GMT+01:00 Matteo Beccati : >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wasn't aware of this particular issue, until a few minutes ago (got a >>> bug report from a user). Any reason why: >>> >>> http

Re: [PHP-DEV] Fwd: [php-src] Constant-Time bin2hex() implementation (#909)

On 26/11/14 16:29, Scott Arciszewski wrote: > That's a rather extreme reaction to trying to patch string operations that > real-world frameworks use to handle crypto secrets, don't you think? Hmm, no. -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, vi

Re: [PHP-DEV] bison 3.0

On 11/12/14 09:36, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > CCing Mike as he was the author who originally added 3.0 to the exclude > list. Yes, I'm on ArchLinux, which has very recent software versions, so I just added it to the exclude, when I upgraded bison to 3.0 and then downgraded bison again. IIRC ZTS buil

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] pecl_http

On 19/08/14 09:49, Michael Wallner wrote: > Hi PHP internals! > > I've created an RFC for discussion: > > Whether it is feasible to add pecl_http v2 to the core. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http > Just a minor update: the two PECL depencies have bee

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7

On 17/12/14 00:45, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi Pierre, > >> On 16 Dec 2014, at 23:42, Pierre Joye >> wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 17, 2014 4:19 AM, "Andrea Faulds" wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, actually, a 2to3-esque tool and a formal extension of 5.6's >>> support by a year sounds like a better solution. If o

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] pecl_http

On 18/12/14 01:38, Pierre Joye wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2014 5:26 PM, "Michael Wallner" <mailto:m...@php.net>> wrote: >> >> Just a minor update: the two PECL depencies have been ported to ZE3. >> > > Btw, I still wonder if their features could be p

Re: [PHP-DEV] About SUCCESS/FAILURE

There's already ZEND_RESULT_CODE, or did I miss anything? On 25 Dec 2014 06:45, "Xinchen Hui" wrote: > Hey: > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Pierre Joye > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > >> > >>> On 24 Dec 2014, at 23:53, Levi Morrison wrote: > >>> > >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Top 10 Pecl extensions PHP7 compatibility

On 14/01/15 18:53, Julien Pauli wrote: > Hello, > > > Had a discussion with Rasmus today. > > It would be cool if we could have a PHP7 compat of our top-10 Pecl > extensions before our first PHP7 RC. > > This will allow more people to help testing both PHP7 (some people may need > some of the t

Re: [PHP-DEV] Top 10 Pecl extensions PHP7 compatibility

On 14/01/15 23:13, Christian Stocker wrote: > Hi > > On 14.01.15 22:21, Michael Wallner wrote: >> On 14/01/15 18:53, Julien Pauli wrote: >> >> After a quick glance at the PECL package stats (of packages wchich are >> not already in kind of an exclusive/external ma

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2

On 15/01/15 15:51, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Let’s have a look. From a quick skim over the thread for v0.1: > > * In favour of weak types (or the RFC anyway): Adam, Stas, yourself, Jordi, > Pierre, Count me in for v0.1. -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List

Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Fixed bug #68839 Possible null pointer dereference

On 15/01/15 17:31, Joshua Rogers wrote: > --- > ext/phar/zip.c | 12 +--- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/ext/phar/zip.c b/ext/phar/zip.c > index 2a95580..2117b0e 100644 > --- a/ext/phar/zip.c > +++ b/ext/phar/zip.c > @@ -1217,7 +1217,9 @@ int phar_zip_f

Re: [PHP-DEV] Class constructor behaviour

On 19 Jan 2015 12:30, "Ferenc Kovacs" wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Stanislav Malyshev > wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > This is pretty horrible and should be fixed by making sure that > > > > I don't see why it's so horrible. In fact, handling null is easier than > > handling exception

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] pecl_http

Hi! Now, that I'm mostly done with porting pecl/http [1] and dependencies (propro [2] and raphf [3]) to ZE3 I'd like to restart discussion on the topic, whether it is feasible to add pecl_http as a bundled extension to the core. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http [1] https://github.com/php/pecl-

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] pecl_http

> On 23 01 2015, at 04:42, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > > > Could you include http_build_query() modification in the RFC? > http_build_query() escapes ' ' as '+' currently. It should be '%20'. > I was about to proposing this change, but it was http_* function and > the change does not break scripts.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] pecl_http

> On 22 01 2015, at 19:51, Levi Morrison wrote: > >> Now, that I'm mostly done with porting pecl/http [1] and dependencies >> (propro [2] and raphf [3]) to ZE3 I'd like to restart discussion on the >> topic, whether it is feasible to add pecl_http as a bundled extension to >> the core. >> >> ht

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] pecl_http

> On 23 01 2015, at 02:40, Pierre Joye wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Michael Wallner wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Now, that I'm mostly done with porting pecl/http [1] and dependencies >> (propro [2] and raphf [3]) to ZE3 I'd like to restar

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] pecl_http

> On 23 01 2015, at 09:11, Michael Wallner wrote: > > >> On 23 01 2015, at 04:42, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >> >> >> Could you include http_build_query() modification in the RFC? >> http_build_query() escapes ' ' as '+' currently. It sh

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP7 Homework for everyone reading this list

On 23/01/15 22:18, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > Dmitry Stogov in php.internals (Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:54:45 +0400): >> "master" branch. > > propro, raphf and pecl_http do not compile with the master branch. > You'll have to checkout the phpng branch. These extensions did compile > and load: > https://phpde

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] pecl_http

On 23/01/15 09:27, Michael Wallner wrote: > >> On 23 01 2015, at 02:40, Pierre Joye wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Michael Wallner >> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Now, that I'm mostly done with porting pecl/http [1] and >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] pecl_http

On 22/01/15 19:51, Levi Morrison wrote: >> Now, that I'm mostly done with porting pecl/http [1] and dependencies >> (propro [2] and raphf [3]) to ZE3 I'd like to restart discussion on the >> topic, whether it is feasible to add pecl_http as a bundled extension to >> the core. >> >> https://wiki.php

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

Hi, Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was proposed on August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whether to add pecl_http to the core. The vote will be open until about 12:00 UTC on Friday, February 6th. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote -- Regards, Mike -- PHP

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 28/01/15 18:58, Levi Morrison wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Levi Morrison > wrote: > > Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was proposed on > August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whether to add > pecl_http t

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 28/01/15 19:08, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Wallner <mailto:m...@php.net>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was proposed on > August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whe

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 28/01/15 19:03, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi Levi, > >> On 28 Jan 2015, at 17:58, Levi Morrison wrote: >> >> Oh, one more item: has anyone had time to review the pieces and how >> they all interact, as well as reviewing the quality of each >> component? I should hardly think in the time given th

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 28/01/15 20:07, Matteo Beccati wrote: > On 28/01/2015 13:17, Michael Wallner wrote: >> Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was proposed on >> August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whether to add >> pecl_http to the core. The vote will be open unt

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 28/01/15 20:18, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi Michael, > >> On 28 Jan 2015, at 19:13, Michael Wallner wrote: >> >> - Client >> >> The http stream wrapper is a hack and the existing libcurl binding >> is subpar. They could be improved separate

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

I'll forward this to internals, Chris. On 28/01/15 18:43, christopher jones wrote:> > > On 1/28/15 9:28 AM, Michael Wallner wrote: >> On 28/01/15 18:22, christopher jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1/28/15 9:17 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 28/01/15 21:03, Levi Morrison wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Michael Wallner <mailto:m...@php.net>> wrote: > > On 28/01/15 18:58, Levi Morrison wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Levi Morrison <mailto:le...@php.net> > &

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 28/01/15 21:32, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Some feedback: I feel the RFC is not clear about the advantages and >> disadvantages of including this package. Mostly, the RFC is "hey I have >> this package can we include it in core?" I feel like it's fairly incomplete > > Agreed. There n

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] [CANCELLED] pecl_http

Hi, The vote has been cancelled on 2015-01-28 at 23:30 UTC due to concerns about completeness of the RFC. I'll rewrite it and put it back under discussion when ready. Thank you all for your feedback. Cheers, Mike

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi! I’ve rewritten the RFC for pecl_http and hopefully addressed most of the things mentioned previously. I you still find anything lacking, please let me know, so I can expand the RFC accordingly. And of course, everything else is up for discussion. Thanks, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runt

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 29/01/15 12:32, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Awesome work! > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Michael Wallner <mailto:m...@php.net>> wrote: > > I’ve rewritten the RFC for pecl_http and hopefully addressed most of > the things mentioned prev

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

> On 29 01 2015, at 12:14, Michael Wallner wrote: > > Hi! > > I’ve rewritten the RFC for pecl_http and hopefully addressed most of the > things mentioned previously. > > I you still find anything lacking, please let me know, so I can expand the > RFC acco

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Daniel! > On 30 01 2015, at 07:28, Daniel Lowrey wrote: > > Hi Mike :) > > I'd like to chime in on the discussion ... > > > 1. There is a lot of *really* useful functionality in pecl/http that IMO > should be bundled with the standard PHP distribution. > > This, to me, means things like p

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 29/01/15 21:25, Michael Wallner wrote: > >> On 29 01 2015, at 12:14, Michael Wallner > <mailto:m...@php.net>> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> I’ve rewritten the RFC for pecl_http and hopefully addressed most of >> the things mentioned previously. >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 30/01/15 15:08, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Michael Wallner <mailto:m...@php.net>> wrote: > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http > hi, > > just a small question: what will be the upgrade path for existing >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 30/01/15 17:45, Lester Caine wrote: > On 30/01/15 14:22, Michael Wallner wrote: >> - default etag hash algo for dynamic response bodies has changed to >>sha1 from crc32 and cannot be changed through an INI setting >> >> etags on dynamic content are, wel

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 30/01/15 20:19, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Just because that most of the code YOU have seen uses CamelCase does not >> mean that CamelCase is the "standard". I programmed in other languages for >> over 20 years before I switched to PHP, and in those languages the standard >> was snake

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Stas! On 30/01/15 20:10, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> I’ve rewritten the RFC for pecl_http and hopefully addressed most of the >> things mentioned previously. > > Thank you, Michael, this is much better! > > I would still like to hear more about 2 extensions, especially about > raph

Re: [PHP-DEV] Magic getter bug tickled by Moodle

On 31 Jan 2015 06:04, "Rasmus Lerdorf" wrote: > > There is something weird going on with PHP7 and the moodle_page class > and all its magic methods. It dies with a: > > /var/www/moodle/blocks/navigation/block_navigation.php(223) : Notice - > Undefined property: moodle_page::$navigation > /var/www/

Re: [PHP-DEV] [DICUSS]Cleanup resource handling APIs

> On 02 02 2015, at 07:51, François Laupretre wrote: > Sorry to say that, but are you sure you understand the difference between > zval types and resource types ? > Thanks, you made my day. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/uns

Re: [PHP-DEV] [DICUSS]Cleanup resource handling APIs

> On 02 02 2015, at 09:01, Sara Golemon wrote: > > > >> On 2 Feb 2015, at 06:43, Xinchen Hui wrote: >> furthermore, I'd like to discuss remove the handle in zend_resource struct.. >> >> it may breaks some usage (use resource as long/double/string > > I've seen uses in the wild where file ha

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2

> On 02 02 2015, at 00:49, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > Good evening, > > The RFC has been updated to cover return types, since Levi’s Return Types RFC > has passed. The patch is a work in progress: it works, but lacks tests for > return types. > > Version 0.3 of the RFC can be found here: > ht

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Removal of dead or not yet PHP7 ported SAPIs and extensions

On 3 Feb 2015 08:10, "Adam Harvey" wrote: > > On 3 February 2015 at 03:11, Anatol Belski wrote: > > properly after the voting phase the > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/removal_of_dead_sapis_and_exts moves to the > > voting. Each item is voted separately. The voting ends on 2015-02-09 at > > 21:00 CE

Re: [PHP-DEV] $http_response_header

> On 03 02 2015, at 10:33, Julien Pauli wrote: > > $HTTP_RAW_POST_DATA could as well disappear (made deprecated as of 5.6). > This is already gone in master, which reminds me of the missing UPGRADING note. Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe

Re: [PHP-DEV] removing http line folding support?

On 04/02/15 08:24, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > Our header() function supports multiline HTTP headers, which are allowed > by RFC 2616. However, newer RFC - > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.4 - deprecates them and > says: > > Historically, HTTP header field values could be

Re: [PHP-DEV] removing http line folding support?

On 04/02/15 09:52, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Don't we prevent that already? >> http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_5_6/main/SAPI.c#749 > > I'm not sure what you meant by "that", but the code you linked to allows > multi-line headers according to RFC 2616 - this is what comment in line > 750 me

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi! Do we want to discuss anything further before I put this to vote again? https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http Points explicitely marked for discussion in the RFC itself: * pecl/propro Proxies for properties representing state in internal C structs https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#peclpro

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 04/02/15 14:06, Pavel Kouřil wrote: > Hello, > > as I mentioned already in the other thread - there are currently no > coding standards related to namespace naming in > https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/CODING_STANDARDS and the > coding standards should probably be updated before voti

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Stas! On 05/02/15 00:43, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Points explicitely marked for discussion in the RFC itself: >> >> * pecl/propro >> Proxies for properties representing state in internal C structs >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#peclpropro >> >> * pecl/raphf >> (Persist

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Support internal function return types

On 05/02/15 09:05, reeze wrote: > Thanks a lot! > > On 5 February 2015 at 16:03, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > >> merged into master with the proposed changes. >> >> Thanks. Dmitry. Awesome, thank you! -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit:

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Stas! On 05/02/15 09:30, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> think raphf is far more of practical use. Why should HTTP, or even more >> HTTPS or HTTP2, be any different than another service, especially when > > Which "another service"? Databases (see my pecl/pq example in the RFC), key/valu

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Stas! On 05/02/15 09:30, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> The sole code change would be removing the check for POST, i.e. >> `!strcasecmp(SG(request_method),"POST")` so that actually any request >> method with a recognized content-type (i.e. application/form-data or >> application/x-www-form-urlen

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 05/02/15 09:53, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Databases (see my pecl/pq example in the RFC), key/value stores, message >> queues, whatever you can think of. > > HTTP and databases are principally different. HTTP protocol is stateless > message-oriented protocol, and database connection

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 05/02/15 10:03, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Yes, I mean $_POST (and $_FILES). It's been requested multiple times, >> but I know it's quite controversial. I think this approach is better >> than any other proposed yet (think $_PUT and stuff). > > You're building an OO next-generation A

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] script() and script_once()

On 05/02/15 02:53, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to discuss my "must have it in PHP 7" item. > > PHP RFC: script() and script_once() > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/script_and_script_once > Forget about the INI setting. I think the perfect fit for that feature would be import{,_once

Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow dropping typehints during inheritance

On 05/02/15 13:10, Julien Pauli wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > >> Hi Hannes, >> >>> On 4 Feb 2015, at 23:58, Hannes Magnusson >> wrote: >>> >>> So what it supports "more inputs"? >>> It does constitute an LSP violation. "more inputs" is not what the >>> guarantee

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Pierre! On 05/02/15 18:49, Pierre Joye wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2015 3:17 PM, "Michael Wallner" <mailto:m...@php.net>> wrote: >> >> Compare the timings accessing google 20 times sequentually: >> >> With default of raphf.persistent_handle.limit

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Stas! On 05/02/15 21:28, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Does the following kcachegrind screenshot give an idea (I used a minimum >> node cost of 10% to simplify the graph)? >> >> Left is raphf enabled (24M Ir) and on the right raphf disabled (35M Ir): >> http://dev.iworks.at/ext-http/rap

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Stas! On 05/02/15 21:46, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Uhm, I'm not sure I understand :-? Weren't I supposed to measure exacly >> that? Let me know, if you wanted something else to be compared. > > I wanted to know why we need persistent resources. You brought comparing > persistent re

Re: [PHP-DEV] Design by Contract

On 06/02/15 15:17, François Laupretre wrote: > You probably didn't live the PHP 4/5 migration Now, this seems to become a habit. -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 08/02/15 23:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Are you saying performance is not the reason we use persistent handles? > > It is, for databases where connection setup is expensive. Even then > persistent handles are not always the best solution. But with DB, you > routinely connect to on

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 08/02/15 23:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> Youself said that HTTP is a stateless protocol, so how would a >> connection in an "unclean state" look like in your opinion? > > Connection and protocol are different things. In connection, you could > be in the middle of the protocol - i.e. sendin

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 04/02/15 18:57, Pavel Kouřil wrote: > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> Hey, >> >>> On 4 Feb 2015, at 17:10, Crypto Compress >>> wrote: >>> I would go with Http\ >>> >>> Why not the reserved Php\Http\? >> >> This sounds good to me. php\ is already reserved, and i

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 06/02/15 17:44, Daniel Lowrey wrote: >>> I’ve rewritten the RFC for pecl_http and hopefully addressed most of the >>> things mentioned previously. >>> >>> I you still find anything lacking, please let me know, so I can > expand the >>> RFC accordingly. >>> >>> And of course, everything else is u

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Proposal: Introduce a new macro:php_error_docref_ex()

Why not leave it as it is? I mean, really, those five strokes? Wherever it's going, I'm -1 on changing the meaning of the existing macro. On 11 Feb 2015 16:01, "reeze" wrote: > Hi, > > On 11 February 2015 at 19:15, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I don't think it'll improve something, a

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 06/02/15 17:44, Daniel Lowrey wrote: > If you doubt that this is a solved problem in userland consider the > performance of my own 100% userland HTTP client demonstrated here > without the use of curl or any other extensions: > > https://gist.github.com/rdlowrey/54171625334670ccb9f5 I can repl

Re: [PHP-DEV] [DISCUSSION] Make empty() a Variadic

On 12/02/15 19:55, Thomas Punt wrote: > I'd like to propose to make empty() a variadic, where if any > arguments passed in are considered empty, then false is returned Should that read "if any arguments passed in are considered *NOT* empty, then false is returned"? -- Regards, Mike -- PHP In

Re: [PHP-DEV] [DISCUSSION] Make empty() a Variadic

On 13/02/15 12:31, Andrea Faulds wrote: > >> On 13 Feb 2015, at 11:16, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >>> On 13 Feb 2015, at 07:28, Michael Wallner wrote: >>> >>> On 12/02/15 19:55, Thomas Punt wrote: >>> >>>> I

Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4

On 17/02/15 23:03, Sara Golemon wrote: > 1) Introduce scalar types for primitives: bool, int, float, string, > resource, object (we already have array) > 1a) Introduce meta-types as pre-defined unions (we can add custom > unions in a later rfc). A possible list may be as follows (again, we > can

Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4

On 18/02/15 12:31, Rowan Collins wrote: > Michael Wallner wrote on 18/02/2015 11:19: >> On 17/02/15 23:03, Sara Golemon wrote: >> >>> 1) Introduce scalar types for primitives: bool, int, float, string, >>> resource, object (we already have array) >>> 1a)

Re: [PHP-DEV] Digit separators for numeric literals

On 19/02/15 03:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > but _999_ would need to work as well and _ is a valid char in a constant > so you can have a constant named _999_. > Why would we need to support the underscore in front (and maybe even at the end) of a number? -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - P

[PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSS] Continue output buffering despite aborted connection

Hi, I drafted an RFC to continue output buffering despite an aborted connection was detected. The title might well be a bit misleading, so please read the RFC before judgement. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/continue_ob -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To un

Re: [PHP-DEV] Digit separators for numeric literals

On 19/02/15 13:16, Nikita Nefedov wrote: > > Why not space? It's certainly possible (I just checked) and it would look > clear I guess: > > my_func(1 999 999); > Yes, but what if I just missed one or two commas there? ;) -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Maili

[PHP-DEV] [RFC][PRE-VOTE] pecl_http

Hi! Please, consider this a warning that I'll put this to vote again shortly. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] pecl_http

Hi, as already threatened, I hereby open the vote on the pecl_http RFC. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Unnecessary extensions ...

> On 22 02 2015, at 11:31, Lester Caine wrote: > > With the discussion on adding http extension by default and not now > having other key extensions in a normal build I'm looking at what I NEED > and what I can get away without. On the current PHP7 test build I do not > have mysqlnd installed as

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] pecl_http

Hi, I forgot to formally declare a voting period, so I’ll do so now. Voting will end on Feb, 27th at 21:00 UTC, so if you didn’t vote yet, please do so until then. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote > On 20 02 2015, at 21:56, Michael Wallner wrote: > > Hi, > > as alread

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] pecl_http

The vote on the pecl_http RFC has been closed, thanks to everyone who participated. The results are 9 in favour and 23 against, so the RFC was declined, which is actually an understatement ;) > On 27 02 2015, at 18:19, Pascal MARTIN, AFUP wrote: > > > Le 26/02/2015 12:28, Micha

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Constructor behaviour of internal classes

On 1 Mar 2015 15:56, "Dan Ackroyd" wrote: > > Hi Internals, > > This email is to announce the formal opening of discussion for an RFC > to clean up the behaviour of the constructors shown by several > internal classes. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/internal_constructor_behaviour > > For reference t

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Constructor behaviour of internal classes

On 01/03/15 23:05, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> This email is to announce the formal opening of discussion for an RFC >> to clean up the behaviour of the constructors shown by several >> internal classes. >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/internal_constructor_behaviour > > I'm not sure why t

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Constructor behaviour of internal classes

>> Consistency with userland is beneficial, because the majority of PHP >> developers probably do not expect `new` to yield anything than a >> concrete instance or an exception. > > Of course, consistency with userland is beneficial. However, in userland > we do not have many things that we have

Re: [PHP-DEV] Consistent function names

> On 04 03 2015, at 09:58, Lester Caine wrote: > > On 04/03/15 03:34, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >> I made list of rename candidates >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_function_names#list_of_functions_to_be_renamed >> If you have suggestions, I appreciate! > > Taking the starting point ... the cod

Re: [PHP-DEV] Use behavior thoughts

> > So, I created a PR to remove this error: > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1149 > +1 > > Note that there is no BC break here, as it's removing an error condition > today. > > This results in a weird edge case (which is 100% valid, but feels

[PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] continue output buffering

Hi, I’d like to start vote on RFC:continue_ob — any objections? https://wiki.php.net/rfc/continue_ob Regards, Mike

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] continue output buffering

Hi all! > On 11 03 2015, at 08:26, Matteo Beccati wrote: > > On 10/03/2015 03:10, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Michael Wallner wrote: >> >>> Hi, I’d like to start vote on RFC:continue_ob — any objections? >

Re: [PHP-DEV] php_stream_read(...) may return less than expected

On 12/03/15 14:28, Umberto Salsi wrote: > Hi all, > I'm not a PHP internals developer, but this might be a bug spread here and > there in the source. This coding pattern: > > if(php_stream_read(..., n) != n){ > php_error_docref(NULL TSRMLS_CC, E_SOMETHING, "Read error!"); > > seems wrong to m

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] continue output buffering

Voting just started on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/continue_ob I’ll close the poll in a week. Thanks, Mike

Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities

> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > All, > > I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right > now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I > decided to pull some stats. > > The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went

Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities

> On 15 03 2015, at 16:23, Levi Morrison wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote: >> >>> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Minimum version of GCC required to build PHP

> On 15 03 2015, at 16:36, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: > > Am 15.03.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann: >> I am asking because using GCC 2.95.3 and GCC 3.4.0 I get errors related >> to the usage of intptr_t (see http://pastebin.com/9Gn0AAXA). > > Over in Room 11, Michael just pointed out th

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >