On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Walter Parker wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Rene Veerman <
> rene.veerman.netherla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > noted, and sorry about confusing it, but can we rest this discussion
> here?
> > i dont wanna clog up the thread any further..
> >
> >
> >
>
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Rene Veerman <
rene.veerman.netherla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> noted, and sorry about confusing it, but can we rest this discussion here?
> i dont wanna clog up the thread any further..
>
>
>
Before you go, two observations:
First, your website doesn't actually appea
On 27 Aug 2016, at 21:42, Rene Veerman wrote:
i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont
appreciate
trolling on subjects as fundamental (and to me at least; important),
ok..
“JK” is my initials. I was not joking. However, your obvious failure
to understand domain resp
Another thing sort of related to consider is HTTP2. Instead of
concatenating all scripts to one, it seems to be a much better and
performant solution.
See https://youtu.be/G62aCRIlONU .
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 at 14:57 Rene Veerman <
rene.veerman.netherla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> noted, and sorry abou
noted, and sorry about confusing it, but can we rest this discussion here?
i dont wanna clog up the thread any further..
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> 2016-08-28 3:42 GMT+02:00 Rene Veerman >:
> > i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont
2016-08-28 3:42 GMT+02:00 Rene Veerman :
> i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont appreciate
> trolling on subjects as fundamental (and to me at least; important), ok..
"JK" is his initials, "Joshua Kehn". Please be careful when posting
and make sure you read over message
i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont appreciate
trolling on subjects as fundamental (and to me at least; important), ok..
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Joshua Kehn wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2016, at 21:26, Rene Veerman wrote:
>
> From: Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.
with all due respect, you sound like you don't know what you're talking
about ok.. i rest my case at the arguments i presented, confident it'll
convince the internals team (which is what this is *about*, ok)..
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Joshua Kehn wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2016, at 21:26, Rene V
fiiine, i dont wanna get booted off the list.. ;)
yea, with the long var names i use and the obfuscator knocking that down to
3 letter each.. should be sweet :)
i'll probably continue on wednesday, when i've installed my new SSD.. right
now runtime for obfuscation of what needs to work (my own so
On 27 Aug 2016, at 21:26, Rene Veerman wrote:
From: Ashley Sheridan
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Rene Veerman
Please don't top-post.
Nginx was probably suggested as a lightweight web server, instead of
Apache. I can't say I've ever
On 27 Aug 2016, at 20:50, Rene Veerman wrote:
500Kb of the JS is my framework (which does a lot, you can see it when
the
new encryption is done..)..
another 500Kb is things like the full sourcecode for jQuery..
so thanks, i'll use the minified jQuery in the next update.. :)
Lugging around 500
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Rene Veerman <
rene.veerman.netherla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Ashley Sheridan
> Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
> To: Rene Veerman
>
>
> Please don't top-post.
>
500Kb of the JS is my framework (which does a lot, you can see it when the
new encryption is done..)..
another 500Kb is things like the full sourcecode for jQuery..
so thanks, i'll use the minified jQuery in the next update.. :)
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Aziz Saleh wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Au
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Ashley Sheridan
wrote:
>
>
> On 28 August 2016 01:31:50 BST, Rene Veerman gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Joshua Kehn
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Apache handles gzipping just fine. http://httpd.apache.org/
> >> docs/current/mod/mod_deflate.html
> >>
On 28 August 2016 01:31:50 BST, Rene Veerman
wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Joshua Kehn
>wrote:
>
>> Apache handles gzipping just fine. http://httpd.apache.org/
>> docs/current/mod/mod_deflate.html
>>
>> and my PHP handles static file serving only when needed, when
>evaluating
>> con
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Joshua Kehn wrote:
> Apache handles gzipping just fine. http://httpd.apache.org/
> docs/current/mod/mod_deflate.html
>
> and my PHP handles static file serving only when needed, when evaluating
> content and js for specific URLs
>
>
> I'm not sure why that would b
Apache handles gzipping just fine.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_deflate.html
> and my PHP handles static file serving only when needed, when evaluating
> content and js for specific URLs
I'm not sure why that would be required. Why doesn't the HTML reference the
assets required
yea ok.. "something upstream".. is that nginx easy to stack above / next to
/ under apache2? i'm really used to apache2..
and for noobish developers it might be very convenient to add this to php
readfile() afterall..
and my PHP handles static file serving only when needed, when evaluating
content
Why is PHP handling static file serving? This is squarely outside of it's
domain. Have nginx or something upstream handle gzipping content.
--jk
> On Aug 27, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Rene Veerman
> wrote:
>
> eh no, i'm a big fan of caching output in js / json cache files :)
> but those still need
eh no, i'm a big fan of caching output in js / json cache files :)
but those still need to get gzipped... not just my main JS file, also my
photoalbum contents -> another 1Mb of JSON content...
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Ashley Sheridan
wrote:
>
>
> On 27 August 2016 17:52:48 BST, Rene Vee
On 27 August 2016 17:52:48 BST, Rene Veerman
wrote:
>Hi..
>
>First off, i love PHP. Many thanks for keeping it free too.
>
>However, i've noticed that gzipping the 1Mb of javascript that my
>seductiveapps.com needs, takes a relatively long time (measured over a
>total page load time which i'd l
On Fri, April 13, 2007 12:08 pm, Andrew Hutchings wrote:
>> Especially because a lot people use shared hosting these days, and
>> that means that they all run on the same apache. and so they would
>> share the same "application variables". So if person a & b both
>> install the same script on a dif
On 4/13/07, Oliver Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 15:46 schrieb Tijnema !:
> I think that will screw up some things, for example when using 2 the
> same scripts, on the same apache, but on different locations.
It does not screw up things with session variables. The d
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 15:46 schrieb Tijnema !:
> I think that will screw up some things, for example when using 2 the
> same scripts, on the same apache, but on different locations.
It does not screw up things with session variables. The difference between
session variables and application v
Tijnema ! wrote:
> Especially because a lot people use shared hosting these days, and
> that means that they all run on the same apache. and so they would
> share the same "application variables". So if person a & b both
> install the same script on a different domain. They would work like 1
> scr
On 4/13/07, Andrew Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/12/07, Oliver Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2007 06:34 schrieb Andrew Hutchings:
>> > Isn't that what a database is for (e.g. MySQL)?
>>
>> No. - It's that what a symbol table is for.:-)
Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/12/07, Oliver Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2007 06:34 schrieb Andrew Hutchings:
>> > Isn't that what a database is for (e.g. MySQL)?
>>
>> No. - It's that what a symbol table is for.:-)
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Oliver
>
> You simply could cr
On 4/12/07, Oliver Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2007 06:34 schrieb Andrew Hutchings:
> Isn't that what a database is for (e.g. MySQL)?
No. - It's that what a symbol table is for.:-)
Best Regards,
Oliver
You simply could create a table with 2 columns 'key' and 'va
Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2007 06:34 schrieb Andrew Hutchings:
> Isn't that what a database is for (e.g. MySQL)?
No. - It's that what a symbol table is for.:-)
Best Regards,
Oliver
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Oliver Block wrote:
> Hello,
>
> did you ever discuss a feature like 'application variables'? What I mean is
> that a bunch of scripts builds a logic application which is e.g. able to
> share variables. While session variables can be used to store values between
> script files for a single use
30 matches
Mail list logo
