[PHP-DEV] CVS Account Request: feyge

Translating the documentation -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] highlight_file modification

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > > >>Tom Sommer wrote: >> >>>"Devon O'Dell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >>> >>> Maybe, but then we're assuming Apache ;) >>> >>> >>>.phps does not work on IIS >>> >> >>phps m

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

On 09/12/02, "Matthew Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see very little point in having include /without/ some kind of parsing. > The idea of include is that it lets you dynamically load different pieces > based on some condition. Me either, but... > Yes, it can make adding little pieces t

RE: [PHP-DEV] process in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS broken?

>phpize gives some warnings: >aclocal: macro `AC_ADD_LIBPATH' defined in acinclude.m4 but never used >aclocal: macro `AC_ADD_LIBRARY' defined in acinclude.m4 but never used >aclocal: macro `AC_ADD_LIBRARY_WITH_PATH' defined in acinclude.m4 but never used >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

I see very little point in having include /without/ some kind of parsing. The idea of include is that it lets you dynamically load different pieces based on some condition. Yes, it can make adding little pieces to the config easier to manage, but in my opinion, that's not enough to make me want i

Re: [PHP-DEV] process in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS broken?

On 12 Sep 2002, Brian Lalor wrote: >phpize gives some warnings: >aclocal: macro `AC_ADD_LIBPATH' defined in acinclude.m4 but never used >aclocal: macro `AC_ADD_LIBRARY' defined in acinclude.m4 but never used >aclocal: macro `AC_ADD_LIBRARY_WITH_PATH' defined in acinclude.m

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

I would have to say that I would be +1 for the include feature in the php.ini file, but -1 for the PHP parsing of the file... I see no need for that The include feature could be very usefull so I don't see anything wrong with the idea since the newbies could just stay away from it? I see you

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: documentation revisioning (was Re: socketsextension...pecl it)

On 12 Sep 2002, Brian Lalor wrote: > Markus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As long as the extension is marked EXPERIMENTAL so are the > > docs and so they may be out of date for current version and > > also up to date with current versions and not reflect the > > behav

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: process in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS broken?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:31:35PM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote : > Markus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > cd ext/sockets && phpize && ./configure && make && make install > > The file README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS walks through copying the source > into /tmp/newext and then running

[PHP-DEV] Re: process in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS broken?

Markus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > cd ext/sockets && phpize && ./configure && make && make install The file README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS walks through copying the source into /tmp/newext and then running the commands. There's no mention of needing the PHP source, and in fact s

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: documentation revisioning (was Re: sockets extension...pecl it)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:29:41PM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote : > Markus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As long as the extension is marked EXPERIMENTAL so are the > > docs and so they may be out of date for current version and > > also up to date with current versions and no

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: documentation revisioning (was Re: socketsextension...pecl it)

On 12 Sep 2002, Brian Lalor wrote: > It should be released in conjunction with PHP and a new version put up when > bugs are fixed and the old versions should be available just like the old > versions of PHP are. I don't know what the stats are for how many people are > using older versions of PHP

[PHP-DEV] Re: documentation revisioning (was Re: sockets extension...pecl it)

Markus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As long as the extension is marked EXPERIMENTAL so are the > docs and so they may be out of date for current version and > also up to date with current versions and not reflect the > behaviour of any of the older versions. *sigh* I sh

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

So is it fair to say that we (Brian and others who are interested) should persue a robust patch that will allow for an Include directive in PHP's ini file that functions like Apache's Include directive? dave -Original Message- From: Wez Furlong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursda

Re: [PHP-DEV] process in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS broken?

Using latest CVS HEAD there are no problems: cd ext/sockets && phpize && ./configure && make && make install $ php -r 'dl("sockets.so"); socket_create();' Command line code(1) : Warning - socket_create() expects exactly 3 parameters, 0 given $ autoconf --version Autocon

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension...pecl it

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:13:03PM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote : > Jon Parise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:54:14AM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:41:47AM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote : > > > > > Where are the current docs? > > > > [...

[PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension...pecl it

Jon Parise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:54:14AM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:41:47AM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote : > > > > Where are the current docs? > > > [...] > > > > > > php.net/sockets > > > > By which you mean the source? I

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

On 09/12/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Matthew Walker wrote: > > For what it's worth, here's my +1 on enabling a php-parsed .ini file. > > And to > > maintain backwards compatibility, if the file had no php tags in it, it > > could be parsed as per the old .ini method. > > I

Re: [PHP-DEV] documentation revisioning (was Re: sockets extension...pecl it)

As long as the extension is marked EXPERIMENTAL so are the docs and so they may be out of date for current version and also up to date with current versions and not reflect the behaviour of any of the older versions. As it has been mentioned numerous times, volunteers are

[PHP-DEV] documentation revisioning (was Re: sockets extension...pecl it)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Thanks for bringing that up, Jon. How do I know which version of the > > documentation applies to a particular released version of PHP? We're still > > using php 4.0.6 where I work, but the documentation for the sockets library > > (for example) reflects some newer

Re: [PHP-DEV] process in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS broken?

I have seen the configure error before. Don't know if this is what you are doing, but for me it was using phpize from 4.2.x and trying to build 4.3 extensions. Hope this helps, Brian At 11:27 AM -0700 9/12/02, Brian Lalor wrote: >I just grabbed PHP from CVS and tried to go through the proced

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension...pecl it

On 12 Sep 2002, Brian Lalor wrote: > Jon Parise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > By which you mean the source? I asked if there was documentation outside of > > > the source files. > > > > Yes, the documentation is at http://www.php.net/sockets (which > > redirects to the manual entry). >

[PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension...pecl it

Jon Parise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > By which you mean the source? I asked if there was documentation outside of > > the source files. > > Yes, the documentation is at http://www.php.net/sockets (which > redirects to the manual entry). Thanks for bringing that up, Jon. How do I know wh

RE: [PHP-DEV] process in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS broken?

I dunno the solution to the warnings from phpize, (since i havent figured a way to fix that), But I think they are benign warnings. The error message... "You should update your `aclocal.m4' by running aclocal." seems bogus. It would be great if someone here can comment on it. Anycase, you n

[PHP-DEV] process in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS broken?

I just grabbed PHP from CVS and tried to go through the procedure outlined in README.SELF-CONTAINED-EXTENSIONS and found that it doesn't work. Can someone help? I'm looking at revision 1.10 of the README. The php4 module's checked out into my ~/devel directory. So under CONVERTING AN EXISTING

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension...pecl it

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:54:14AM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:41:47AM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote : > > > Where are the current docs? > > [...] > > > > php.net/sockets > > By which you mean the source? I asked if there was documentation outside of > the source f

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

For what it's worth, my posts were intended to be taken sarcastically :) Devon Original Message: - From: Matthew Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:24:12 -0600 (MDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir > On Thu,

[PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension...pecl it

Markus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:41:47AM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote : > > Where are the current docs? > [...] > > php.net/sockets By which you mean the source? I asked if there was documentation outside of the source files. -- Brian Lalor [EMAIL PROT

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension...pecl it

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:41:47AM -0700, Brian Lalor wrote : > Where are the current docs? [...] php.net/sockets -- GnuPG Key: http://guru.josefine.at/~mfischer/C2272BD0.asc - It's not a fug, it's a beature. - -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscri

[PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension...pecl it

"Jason T. Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The biggest thing I would like to have complete *by 4.3* is good solid > docs on this extension (There is some already done). I am planning on > working on this, and I have had one volunteer to help out. Where are the current docs? I'd like to hav

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Matthew Walker wrote: > >> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >> >> ok, so we should write a mini-language for the ini? or should we >> just make it php? then we just need to scan/interpret it. >> > >> > Nope, sounds like a bad idea for something simple a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Matthew Walker wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> ok, so we should write a mini-language for the ini? or should we just > >> make it php? then we just need to scan/interpret it. > > > > Nope, sounds like a bad idea for something simple as a .i

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> ok, so we should write a mini-language for the ini? or should we just >> make it php? then we just need to scan/interpret it. > > Nope, sounds like a bad idea for something simple as a .ini file. > For what it's worth, here's my +1 on enablin

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2002 18:20 schrieb David Viner: > Hmm... in the apache world, the srm.conf and access.conf were deprecated, > but the Include directive in the configuration file is still maintained. > That is, by default, people use a single apache configuration file. > However, for s

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ok, so we should write a mini-language for the ini? or should we just make > it php? then we just need to scan/interpret it. Nope, sounds like a bad idea for something simple as a .ini file. Derick -- PHP Development Mailing List

[PHP-DEV] SNMP extension question

HI, While adding SNMPv3 support I noticed that number 5 to 8 are reserved. These are numbers used to map (for instance) from the PHP_FUNCTION(snmpget) to the internal php_snmp function. (Example code) PHP_FUNCTION(snmpget) { php_snmp(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS_PASSTHRU, 1); } The number

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

Thats what I was talking about (or should we just make it in php?) Now, should we start an ini-project? heh Devon Original Message: - From: Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:39:03 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

The last time we had this discussion a few People didn't liked that kind of flex^H^H^H^Hcomplexity in the include file. Hell, you even could just use an PHP source-file for it ... :) On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 12:34:30PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : > ok, so we should write a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

ok, so we should write a mini-language for the ini? or should we just make it php? then we just need to scan/interpret it. if we want to make the ini file more powerful, there are *many* things that can be done... it just really depends how powerful it needs to be (especially since php works fi

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 09:20:03AM -0700, David Viner wrote : > Hmm... in the apache world, the srm.conf and access.conf were deprecated, > but the Include directive in the configuration file is still maintained. > That is, by default, people use a single apache configuration file. > However, for

RE: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Win32 project files

Looks ok to me. > -Original Message- > From: Sebastian Bergmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Win32 project files > > > A while ago I started working on main/config.w32.h beeing generated >

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] include_ini and include_ini_dir

Hmm... in the apache world, the srm.conf and access.conf were deprecated, but the Include directive in the configuration file is still maintained. That is, by default, people use a single apache configuration file. However, for specialized cases, like Brian's, people have the ability to use multip

[PHP-DEV] url_rewriter maximum buffer size

After switching to PHP 4.2.3 for awhile, it seems the url_rewriter bug is still present at some level (though much less than before). Some users reported some errors during parsing of long URLs. I have been trying to see if I could fix this problem myself or at least identify it but with no succes

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP mem leaks

what version of mod_ssl are you using ? your situation looks very familiar since I experienced the same problem, the issue was mod_ssl, there is a new version available to fix this bug. (buffer overflow). Thanks. Xavier Spriet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 08:58, John Wards wrote: >

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP mem leaks

> Shoot me down if this should go on the gen list but I think this question > would get a better answer on this list. > > I am running a large PHP/MySQL/Apache driven website and I am finding that > the apache Processes get larger and larger as the days go on. When I > stop/start apache the proces

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP mem leaks

Oooops. We are running Apache/1.3.26, PHP/4.2.2 mod_ssl/2.8.9 under FreeBSD 4.6. Apache modules: mod_php4, mod_ssl, mod_setenvif, mod_so, mod_auth, mod_access, mod_alias, mod_userdir, mod_actions, mod_imap, mod_asis, mod_cgi, mod_dir, mod_autoindex, mod_include, mod_status, mod_negotiation,

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP mem leaks

Could you please let us know what modules it is that you're using as well... Thanks, Xavier Spriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 08:52, John Wards wrote: > Shoot me down if this should go on the gen list but I think this question > would get a better answer on this list. > > I am ru

[PHP-DEV] PHP mem leaks

Shoot me down if this should go on the gen list but I think this question would get a better answer on this list. I am running a large PHP/MySQL/Apache driven website and I am finding that the apache Processes get larger and larger as the days go on. When I stop/start apache the processes are aro

RE: [PHP-DEV] CVS Account Request: sigi

Could you be a little more specific? Regards, Lukas > -Original Message- > From: Simone Grassi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PHP-DEV] CVS Account Request: sigi > > Join PEAR to develop: > > - improvement of

[PHP-DEV] CVS Account Request: sigi

Join PEAR to develop: - improvement of existing classes - bug fixes - new classes development we are starting to develop a framework for Ci S.B.i.C. snc a joung company. We would like to start using PEAR adding new usefull abstraction layers. A CVS account would give us the possibility to

Re: [PHP-DEV] zend_execute function

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 02:14:24PM +0200, eminent wrote : > i have to use zend execute statement into PHP api. how can i use this > function to interpret php code? Have a look at main/main.c (php_execute_script) and traverse the called zend API functions from it. Try lxr: http://lxr

Re: [PHP-DEV] zend_execute function

e>> i have to use zend execute statement into PHP api. how can i use this e>> function to interpret php code? thanks MAX If you need just to execute PHP code, you have eval() in PHP. zend_execute is to be used by Zend engine, and needs various preparations (like, zend_compile, etc.) before it c

[PHP-DEV] zend_execute function

i have to use zend execute statement into PHP api. how can i use this function to interpret php code? thanks MAX -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PHP-DEV] CVS Account Request: askreddy

i want to the best so i will choose the best so -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PHP-DEV] ZendEngine2 segfault on startup

hi, i tried to run php4-head + ZE2 but both CLI and apache(1.3)-sapi segfault for me. the steps i did were: cvs co php4 cd php4 mv Zend ZE1 cvs co -d Zend ZendEngine2 ./cvsclean ./buildconf './configure' \ '--prefix=/usr/local/php4' \ '--with-apxs=/usr/local/apache/bin/apxs' \ '--disable-

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Fwd: PHP fopen() CRLF Injection]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:47:12AM +0100, James Cox wrote: > Stefan, > > is this really worth it? I think this will break too many scripts. > > -- james My change only changes parse_url() to remove characters that are invalid in urls. If such characters occur in an url that is passed to parse_

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [imp] IMP 3.1 segfault

You should report this to the PHP team. Perhaps it's even fixed in PHP 4.2.3. Zitat von Iain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > I seem to have found a work around for this. I recompiled the PHP4 debian > packages with the option: > > export DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug nostrip" > > which is equivalen