At 10:22 19/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > At 10:15 19/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I would actually like to do that once, if you don't mind :)
> > >
> > >I don't mind at all... but what is the reason for this? :)
> >
> > Well, first
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Ok, then that is a bug that needs to be fixed before 4.3.
This is one of the current session module behavior that I worry.
We need at least strlen. (and char range check)
I check them both in my save handler. (Not published session_pgsql,
but my private session save hand
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 10:15 19/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I would actually like to do that once, if you don't mind :)
> >
> >I don't mind at all... but what is the reason for this? :)
>
> Well, first it's been a while since I did, but I'd also like to see it
At 10:15 19/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I would actually like to do that once, if you don't mind :)
>
>I don't mind at all... but what is the reason for this? :)
Well, first it's been a while since I did, but I'd also like to see it
working in the 'new way' once, with the automated QA.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 10:12 19/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I'd like to hear Stig's opinion on 4.3.0 first, and I tend to agree that
> >we need a 4.2.3 too. I can even find time to do the release process and
> >manage QA, providing there is any feedback to the RC.
At 10:12 19/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'd like to hear Stig's opinion on 4.3.0 first, and I tend to agree that
>we need a 4.2.3 too. I can even find time to do the release process and
>manage QA, providing there is any feedback to the RC.
I would actually like to do that once, if you don
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> Exactly right. During the last release cycle, Derick made elaborate test
> cases, etc. but the result was not very promising. Very few people actually
> took part in the QA process and as a result 4.2.0 was released with some
> serious bugs in it.
>
I am currently debugging an issue which I am finding hard to find which
centers on trying to serialize and deserialize very complex objects which,
when serialized, are around 580k in size. It's all part of a custom session
handler.
However, when I go to deserialize the value, I get back boolean f
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I don't think that's the way to do it at all. In theory, it's no
> problem to track whether changes were made to the session data, and
> perform the write at the end of the request, only if we tracked a
> change. That's only in theory, though, since with the fancy new
>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 01:21:18AM +0200, Bjoern Frantzen wrote :
> Is there a reason that the function ftp_site only returns a bool value and
> not the output from the command?
>
> bool ftp_site ( resource ftp_stream, string cmd )
>
> Will a patch that changes this behaviour be accepted? If we
One another suggestion a change in ZE1 that would ease transition to ZE2.
making
$object->__clone() work on ZE1 (eg. parse equivalant to $object) ,
(without having to add it to all classes that are likely to need it)..
would at least enable code written for ZE1 work with ZE2.. and visa
versa
Is there a reason that the function ftp_site only returns a bool value and
not the output from the command?
bool ftp_site ( resource ftp_stream, string cmd )
Will a patch that changes this behaviour be accepted? If we return 0/false
on error this shouldn't break any applications I think.
--
Ok, then that is a bug that needs to be fixed before 4.3.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Giancarlo wrote:
> Il 00:13, lunedì 19 agosto 2002, hai scritto:
> > > Il 23:54, domenica 18 agosto 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf ha scritto:
> > > > Hrm.. Wait a second though, Giancarlo is saying that if the user
> > > > pa
Il 00:13, lunedì 19 agosto 2002, hai scritto:
> > Il 23:54, domenica 18 agosto 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf ha scritto:
> > > Hrm.. Wait a second though, Giancarlo is saying that if the user
> > > passes in a session id himself and that session does not exist, then
> > > that will be the session id he wi
At 22:21 18-8-2002, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> > >As long as there is momentum on the development process and on the QA
> > >process when needed,
> > >I don't think release momentum matters that much.
> >
> > Right. Since the first part of the sentence does not stand in reality,
>the
> > direct r
> From: Melvyn Sopacua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> At 18:19 17-8-2002, Liz wrote:
>
> > > there should be 'fixed in the next bug-fix release' or 'fixed
> > > in the next
> > > semi-major release'.
> >
> >How about
> >
> >Will be fixed in version major.minor.buildrelease ?? ie tell them
which
> Il 23:54, domenica 18 agosto 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf ha scritto:
> > Hrm.. Wait a second though, Giancarlo is saying that if the user passes
> > in a session id himself and that session does not exist, then that will be
> > the session id he will be given if a session is created on that request.
>
Il 23:54, domenica 18 agosto 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf ha scritto:
> Hrm.. Wait a second though, Giancarlo is saying that if the user passes
> in a session id himself and that session does not exist, then that will be
> the session id he will be given if a session is created on that request.
> Is that
Hrm.. Wait a second though, Giancarlo is saying that if the user passes
in a session id himself and that session does not exist, then that will be
the session id he will be given if a session is created on that request.
Is that correct, Giancarlo?
>From looking at the code and testing that assum
As soon as Dan K signals that the patch-backporting phase is over (should
happen by tomorrow or the next day; he's coordinating with other
backporters), we'll get started.
Zeev
At 23:30 18/08/2002, Xavier Spriet wrote:
>Okay then...
>let's start up the QA process whenever you guys are ready a
At 07:50 PM 8/18/2002 +0200, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:29:47AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
> > more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
> > people. It takes a while for
At 21:58 18/08/2002, Wez Furlong wrote:
>Generally speaking, and please don't take offense, I think that one
>of the problems with ZE2 is that development is slow. I understand
>that there are several very good reasons for that, but the real
>problem is that there aren't enough people with enough
Here my opinion, in case it is worth anything:
Backport debug_backtrace(): +1
Backport all ZE2 changes: -1
Get more momentum behind ZE2: +1
On 08/18/02, "Thies C. Arntzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> zeev, this discussion should be pure technical, any political
> or personal thing
Okay then...
let's start up the QA process whenever you guys are ready and I'll test as much as I
can on 2 of our developement machines, one on linux the other one on SPARC 64.
I'll start as soon as the process is ignited.
Let's get to work and give it some momentum ;)
-Origina
> >As long as there is momentum on the development process and on the QA
> >process when needed,
> >I don't think release momentum matters that much.
>
> Right. Since the first part of the sentence does not stand in reality,
the
> direct result is that momentum matters, a lot :) Lack of momentum
> Lack of momentum
> is the main reason PHP releases are taking several weeks now. It's not
> as if people are testing it thoroughly for weeks and weeks...
I have a dev box I can test my installation setup on with dev releases of
PHP ... where do I sign up? (If needed)
--
Dan Hardiker [[EMA
At 22:20 18/08/2002, Xavier Spriet wrote:
>As long as there is momentum on the development process and on the QA
>process when needed,
>I don't think release momentum matters that much.
Right. Since the first part of the sentence does not stand in reality, the
direct result is that momentum ma
As long as there is momentum on the development process and on the QA process when
needed,
I don't think release momentum matters that much.
It is important to keep up with the current development for 4.3.0 and also for future
implementation of ze2,
which I think probably takes some time.
> look at the opcodes for:
>
> a(b(c()));
>
> function a() {}
> function b() {}
> function c() {}
>
> and tell me which function is called from which scope. unless
> you know something i dont youll see
> a()
> b()
> c()
>
> which is wrong as the correct
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 09:26:45PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 21:15 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 09:00:25PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >> At 20:54 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >> >BTW: the code we're talking about is neither magic nor very
> >>
At 21:15 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 09:00:25PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > At 20:54 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> > >BTW: the code we're talking about is neither magic nor very
> > >complex. andi, sorry i you felt me stepping on your feet;-)
> >
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:06:47PM -0500, Richard Thomas wrote:
> Zeev makes a very very good point here..
>
> What is the point of backporting everything into 4.3, There is no real
> point. PHP needs to move forward with new and improved.. Not spending
> its time going no where, and trying to im
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:18:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>
> > we _want_ to work together, right? atleast i want that. i
> > have pulled my hair many times for having a real-backtrace on
> > a production-site _without_ having to
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 09:00:25PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 20:54 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >BTW: the code we're talking about is neither magic nor very
> >complex. andi, sorry i you felt me stepping on your feet;-)
>
> And yet you took it from ZE2 a couple of months af
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> we _want_ to work together, right? atleast i want that. i
> have pulled my hair many times for having a real-backtrace on
> a production-site _without_ having to load an extension that
> makes the whole site ~10% slower (sorry, derick
At 21:00 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> so - cool, you (z&a) stopped working on it. does that mean
> it's now written in stone and nobody is allowed to touch it?
Feature-wise, I hope so. There's so much I can do to actually make it so,
though.
> We have a pretty clear roadmap f
Zeev makes a very very good point here..
What is the point of backporting everything into 4.3, There is no real
point. PHP needs to move forward with new and improved.. Not spending
its time going no where, and trying to improve on going no where.
With ZE2 being the current goal the only thing t
At 20:56 18/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > At 20:29 18/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > >I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
> > >more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
> > >people.
> >
> > No, it's not. It's around 6 months a
At 21:00 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> this is more than a little frustrating for me and i'm sure
> not too many ppls will be happy about your "desupport notice"
> for ZE1.
It has nothing to do with desupport. I fixed ZE1 issues, *COMPLEX* ones,
that cost me days of low leve
At 20:54 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> BTW: the code we're talking about is neither magic nor very
> complex. andi, sorry i you felt me stepping on your feet;-)
And yet you took it from ZE2 a couple of months after it was written, as
opposed to two years ago when ZE1 was already
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:50:04PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 20:24 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> >On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:19:52PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >> I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
> >> the specifics of the patch that can make
> At 20:29 18/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
> >more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
> >people.
>
> No, it's not. It's around 6 months away from being
> production-quality. That's exactly th
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:49:30PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 20:40 18/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I'm not happy with that indeed. ZE1 is still the current version, and I
> >wouldn't see any reason to not extend it (or even backport things from
> >ZE2 as this patch is largely about).
>> But the real issue here is about session hijacking. Yes, of course
>> people can send whatever session id they want to PHP. Since the
>> session id comes from the user we need to accept what is sent.
>
> This is what I consider unconceivable.
> Why ever should tickets issued by the user be
At 20:24 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:19:52PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
> > the specifics of the patch that can make me change my personal mind about
> > it...
> > I understand you dis
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:29:47AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
> more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
> people. It takes a while for people to upgrade, and many will skip the .0
> release. If
At 20:40 18/08/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm not happy with that indeed. ZE1 is still the current version, and I
>wouldn't see any reason to not extend it (or even backport things from
>ZE2 as this patch is largely about).
Why not backport all the changes then?
I'm -1 on introducing any new
At 20:29 18/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
>more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
>people.
No, it's not. It's around 6 months away from being
production-quality. That's exactly the mispercept
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:19:52PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
> > the specifics of the patch that can make me change my personal mind about
> > it...
> > I understand you
I don't think we should stop people from tweaking ZE1. ZE2 is probably
more than a year away from realistically being available to a lot of
people. It takes a while for people to upgrade, and many will skip the .0
release. If a few tweaks to ZE1 can eliminate peoples' motivation to move
to ZE2, t
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:19:52PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
> the specifics of the patch that can make me change my personal mind about
> it...
> I understand you disagree with me about the momentum issue, so let's agr
I haven't, because of the two reasons I mentioned. There's nothing about
the specifics of the patch that can make me change my personal mind about it...
I understand you disagree with me about the momentum issue, so let's agree
to disagree.
Zeev
At 20:12 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>
there is one tiny change that might destabelize the ZE1 - i
asked if you could take a look and see if you agree with
me that this change is actually *not* harmful.
i don't really see your point that having debug_backtrace
only available in ZE2 will bring more momentum to the
Can't fix the bug, but may as well get rid of the build warning on doze
at least.
--- old_db.c2002-08-18 16:37:34.0 +
+++ db.c2002-08-18 18:00:34.0 +
@@ -38,15 +38,9 @@
#include
#endif
-#ifdef PHP_31
-#include "os/nt/flock.h"
-#else
-#ifdef PHP_WIN32
-#in
I don't think that's the way to do it at all. In theory, it's no problem
to track whether changes were made to the session data, and perform the
write at the end of the request, only if we tracked a change. That's only
in theory, though, since with the fancy new $_SESSION array, there's no wa
I also think we should make sure enough people have motivation to move to
ZE2. If not it'll be hard to push it out and we all know that it's a very
important step for PHP. As it is, there is still not enough momentum behind it.
Andi
At 05:38 PM 8/18/2002 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>I said befor
I said before - I prefer not having any changes in ZE1, for both stability
reasons and also as a motivation to get ZE2 out the door more quickly.
Zeev
At 17:21 18/08/2002, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> if noone objects i'm going to commit this to -HEAD (and we
> can start discussing it the
if noone objects i'm going to commit this to -HEAD (and we
can start discussing it then;-)
re,
tc
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:39:59PM +0200, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> this patch adds the extremely useful debug_backtrace()
> function to ZE1. as it's more-o
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> It's a bug in libtool. It would be best for everyone (not only PHP project)
> that it's fixed in it..
Good to have you back. :) Thanks, and will do.
>---<
Dan Kalowsky
Hi Kevin
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Kevin Gordon wrote:
> The first two functions return "resource" and the second two functions
> return "int". Is there any difference?
In this case, not really. I think I should probably update some of the
documentation it seems.
> Using a postgresql database odbc
In a vhost environment, it seems tat any script can flush all existing
sessions that use the common save_path by lowering his gc_maxlifetime and
seting his gc_probability to 100%.
Both gc_maxlifetime and gc_probability values are INI_ALL, even when the
sessio.save_path is set to everybody's
61 matches
Mail list logo
