2010/4/12 Derick Rethans der...@php.net:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jérôme Loyet wrote:
As dreamcast4 advises me in the previous FPM conversation, I just
wrote the RFC for the FPM INI syntax.
It can be read here: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/fpm/ini_syntax
Tell me what you think.
That seems to be
2010/3/25 Jérôme Loyet jer...@loyet.net:
I made some conf file exemple to really see what it will be:
snip
http://www.fatbsd.com/fpm/ini_with_sections_and_default_and_include.html
From my point of vue, a conf file should be the less redundant as
possible and should be splitable in
Wait a sec,
As a previous maintainer, I dont believe I should really have as much
weight in this decision as the rest of the internals group. It does
seem like plenty enough discussion over this INI business. Theres now
over 40+ mails on this thread, mostly about ini. And this is not the
only
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Antony Dovgal t...@daylessday.org wrote:
Now I was never an XML fan myself, but I think THIS particular XML config file
is even easier to read and understand than php.ini.
Actually, I agree with Antony on this point. The existing XML config
file is pretty easy
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
At 00:01 24/03/2010, Derick Rethans wrote:
I don't see how this actually matters. None of the other SAPIs are
configured with a php.ini syntax.
None of the other SAPIs are configured, period; The little configuration
they
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
'3' is not a very processor friendly number, so working with 4 even though
wasteful on memory, does make perfect sense. How long is it since we had a
640k limit on working memory? SERVERS should have a good amount of memory
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:48 AM, dreamcat four dreamc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
'3' is not a very processor friendly number, so working with 4 even though
wasteful on memory, does make perfect sense. How long is it since we had
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 03/16/2010 10:40 AM, dreamcat four wrote:
As for text files on disk, if they are unicode, they are most commonly
utf-8 too. So then, why use utf-16 as internal unicode representation
in Php? It doesn't really make
And remember,
Its not just the number of times its send to ICU for conversion. Its
also the number of times your UTF-16 string has to be converted back
into utf-8 afterwards. This is why Apple makes its utf-16 strings
immutable. So they are read-only, and the utf-8 representation can be
cached
Hi,
I used to work a job where we used UTF-16 for embedded applications.
Our company chose UTF-16 over UTF-8 because it was byte-aligned and
therefore faster / more effecient to process than UTF-8. However
theres no reason why UTF-8 has to be drastically slower. The truch is,
even we could have
Here,
http://github.com/php/php-src/commits/PHP_5_3_1
http://github.com/php/php-src/blob/93b4bd98771412ee2dbd18efa71e223a1daf3536/NEWS
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Justin Rovang
justin.rov...@minnesota.edu wrote:
Are there changelogs available without downloading?
I keep digging but can't
Hello Internals list,
Today i've had first successful compilation of the fpm sapi (in PHP src tree)
So here's a current status for these efforts:
Libevent:
===
Nick, who is the author of Libevent, says we should not need the modification.
Link:
To import a branch for the FPM sapi upstream. Thread:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/php-dev/3749955. Referred by
Derick Rethans (der...@php.net).
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Stanislav Malyshevs...@zend.com wrote:
Exactly. That's why I don't have a problem of it being a separate SAPI - we
have about 20, what harm could one more do? :) It's much safer this way. And
if we discover merging into sapi/cgi really makes sense - at least we'd
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Derick Rethansder...@php.net wrote:
I would actually suggest to make a branch in the PHP SVN so that you can
make the modifications in there and make things work. From there on we
Thank you. Don't have svn-commit access so kindda need to get that.
could then
Hi,
Can this snippet of shebang checking be removed for php 5.3.+, 6?
Its for external FPM project.
cgi_main.c:
php_fopen_primary_script(file_handle TSRMLS_CC);
if (CGIG(check_shebang_line) file_handle.handle.fp
(file_handle.handle.fp != stdin)) {
Hi!
We have today been asked by Debian and Ubuntu Maintainers to merge our
code up to PHP repository.
They have stated that they want to see the fpm sapi variant officially
supported.
It would be nice to hear what you guy's official decision would be
about something like this.
Here are some
I'm 99% sure, this proposal this time around is for a seperate SAPI
only. So that's not the question being asked here.
The question is: Do you want fpm-sapi (or not)?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Rasmus Lerdorfras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
This has been discussed before. See:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Stanislav Malyshevs...@zend.com wrote:
Hi!
The question is: Do you want fpm-sapi (or not)?
If it applies cleanly to PHP and doesn't require changes in the core, then
why not?
But for that I guess there should be some build modifications that make
common
Hello,
Working on php-cgi variant PHP-FPM 0.6.0.
Link: http://dreamcat4.jottit.com/new_php5-fpm_testing_candidate
The resulting FPM binary works BUT refuses to load Zend extensions. Oh
- so close!
dreamc...@ubuntu910server:/usr/local/src/play/f$ sudo /etc/init.d/php5-fpm start
Starting php_fpm
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:11 PM, dreamcat fourdreamc...@gmail.com wrote:
now. Maybe theres something else I can try?
Ahh !
It appears I should be looking in sapi/cgi_main.c overridden by PHP-FPM.
Sorry to bother you all with my previous message.
Many thanks
dreamcat4
dreamc...@gmail.com
--
21 matches
Mail list logo
