-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 10, 2007, at 01:01:19, Christian Stocker wrote:
On 10.9.2007 6:53 Uhr, BuildSmart wrote:
On Sep 10, 2007, at 24:41:47, Christian Stocker wrote:
On 10.9.2007 3:53 Uhr, BuildSmart wrote:
I was asked to look into the pdoru patch and extension by a
client, this
is where I noticed that a similar patch is already applied to the
rfc1867.c file
(http://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/php-src/main/rfc1867.c?
r1=1.173.2.1&r2=1.173.2.1.2.1&pathrev=PHP_5_2&view=patch),
is this patch compatible with the pdoru Upload Progress Meter
extension
or do I need to write something from scratch?
http://pecl.php.net/package/uploadprogress
Ok so after examination of this extension it looks like it's
basically
using the same code with the exception of no support for memcache
from
http://pdoru.from.ro/upload-progress-meter/upload-progress-meter-
v4.1/upload_progress_meter/upload_progress_meter.c
static int mmcache_loaded(void) { return 0; }
static void * callback_mmcache( void *pointer, int read_bytes, int
total_bytes, int what_happened )
{
return NULL;
}
Doesn't look like much support for m(e)mcache :)
Yes but that isn't the code I'm using, he started it and never
completed it, the basic code is there but he never completed the
memcache required functions, I've filled in the missing memcache code
in the version I have, if it's not compatible with his basic
extension then I either need to code from scratch or modify the pecl
extension to support it and this is what I'm tyring to determine.
and
this is a requirement but my question was, is the provided patch
compatible with the pdoru extension (the pdoru extension works
properl)?
I don't know exactly, but I don't think, that it's 100% compatible,
there was a reason for the PECL extension...
Due to your remark I built it using my version of the pdoru code and
ran a few simple tests, you are correct it's not 100% compatible, it
has arbitrary issues validating the identifier and thus believes the
identifier is invalid which in turn cancels the upload, only 1 out of
7 succeeded.
I tested in file mode only and saw no need to test the memcache code
due to the high failure rate.
In light of this I think my best bet is to take the pecl extension
code and add my memcache routines to satisfy my client.
Now since the code is somewhat similar in design with some minor
changes, mainly flow-control, I'm wondering how stable the extension
is but since it's in pecl one might conclude that it's fairly stable/
dependable or is this a poor assumption?
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I'll run some cursory
tests with the pecl extension before going any further.
chregu
- -- Dale
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFG5NbL0hzWbkf0eKgRArKNAKCkLjg3fKC3RQ3T7OIVaNYmkLXJ/QCdEuyu
jBCGlaIu8sXZJkn578CbjY4=
=lk0W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
