On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> thies Mon Aug 6 09:36:09 2001 EDT
>
> Modified files:
> /php4/ext/standardbasic_functions.c incomplete_class.c
> php_incomplete_class.h var.c
> /php4/ext/wddxwddx.c
> Log
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 09:08:05AM -0500, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> > thies Mon Aug 6 09:36:09 2001 EDT
> >
> > Modified files:
> > /php4/ext/standard basic_functions.c incomplete_class.c
> >
By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it. The
way it was before - it worked in most cases (assuming you never tried to
use a class before you dl() the corresponding extension), but could result
in crashes in other cases.
I don't think it's very important, though.
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it. The
> way it was before - it worked in most cases (assuming you never tried to
> use a class before you dl() the corresponding extension), but could result
> in crashes in other cas
At 17:42 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it. The
> > way it was before - it worked in most cases (assuming you never tried to
> > use a class before you dl() the corresponding extens
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> How so? I can understand that people get used to it, but it's really
> bad. extensions should be loaded in the php.ini file. There's really no
> good reason for using dl() over the php.ini method.
Of course there is. One example is using the same PH
At 17:52 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > How so? I can understand that people get used to it, but it's really
> > bad. extensions should be loaded in the php.ini file. There's really no
> > good reason for using dl() over the php.ini method.
>
>O
BTW, there's no good reason not to load all of the extensions you may need
in all of your scripts from php.ini. Loading many extensions doesn't pose
a significant/noticeable load. Loading using dl() does.
Zeev
At 17:52 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wro
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> BTW, there's no good reason not to load all of the extensions you may need
> in all of your scripts from php.ini. Loading many extensions doesn't pose
> a significant/noticeable load. Loading using dl() does.
Can you explain why the difference matter
At 18:07 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > BTW, there's no good reason not to load all of the extensions you may need
> > in all of your scripts from php.ini. Loading many extensions doesn't pose
> > a significant/noticeable load. Loading using dl()
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Drawbacks:
> - It's slow. We encourage putting expensive operations into the
> module_init, using dl() means they end up being done multiple times.
>
> - Under Apache, it's even worse - since in addition to slowliness, it also
> ends up consuming sign
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:34:34AM -0500, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > Drawbacks:
> > - It's slow. We encourage putting expensive operations into the
> > module_init, using dl() means they end up being done multiple times.
> >
> > - Under Apache, it's ev
By the way, I can't really quantify significantly, as it depends on what
kind of minit you have. For a module such as the COM module, it can double
the amount of time it takes the script to run (if you load typelibs). For
some other modules, it can be almost anything, if your minit is mostly
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> By the way, I can't really quantify significantly, as it depends on what
> kind of minit you have. For a module such as the COM module, it can double
> the amount of time it takes the script to run (if you load typelibs). For
> some other modules, it
At 19:29 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > By the way, I can't really quantify significantly, as it depends on what
> > kind of minit you have. For a module such as the COM module, it can
> double
> > the amount of time it takes the script to run (i
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> i don't think this is crucial for the gtk stuff as this
> problem only arises once the request ends _and_ a new request
> starts. the shutdown in the engine has been changed to only
> destruct classes (from the end of the list) until t
[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it.
> The way it was before - it worked in most cases (assuming you never
> tried to use a class before you dl() the corresponding extension), but
> could result in crashes in other cases.
>
> I
At 17:49 06/08/2001, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
>[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it.
> > The way it was before - it worked in most cases (assuming you never
> > tried to use a class before you dl() the corresponding extension)
I disagree, is there any way dl() can be fixed,
because it is a useful function...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 17:49 06/08/2001, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> >[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > By the way, if it's really important, we can look into supporting it.
> > > The
Please don't just say it's useful, please say why :)
dl() has absolutely nothing over loading in php.ini, and has many drawbacks.
Zeev
At 17:55 06/08/2001, Andy wrote:
>I disagree, is there any way dl() can be fixed,
>because it is a useful function...
>
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
> Please don't just say it's useful, please say why :)
> dl() has absolutely nothing over loading in php.ini, and has many drawbacks.
Please allow me to coin a new term: "Zeev-ism". Zeev-isms are of the
form "users don't need X" or "95.6% of the scripts out
See my letter to Andrei.
I've yet to see an ISP that (knowingly) allows users to load extensions,
and wouldn't agree to add them to the php.ini file.
This isn't a case of me saying "users don't need X" or "95.6% of the
scripts out there don't need Y". This is me saying that dl() is *bad*,
ev
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> don't think there's an API for that. we would have to add the
> MODULE_NUMBER to the class-entry and then (when unloading the
> module) also destroy the classes that that module defined. i
> think constants and functions already do thi
At 06:30 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > > How so? I can understand that people get used to it, but it's really
> > > bad. extensions should be loaded in the php.ini file. There's really no
> > > g
At 07:10 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> What if you use 50 different shared extensions, for different
> scripts on the same box? Should you load them all in each time?
> I don't think so...
Other than your phobia, there's no real reason not to do it :)
Zeev
--
PHP Developmen
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 07:10 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > What if you use 50 different shared extensions, for different
> > scripts on the same box? Should you load them all in each time?
> > I don't think so...
>
> Other than your phobia, there's no r
At 19:40 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > At 07:10 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > > What if you use 50 different shared extensions, for different
> > > scripts on the same box? Should you load them all in each time?
> > > I don't
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Nothing measurable. That was actually measured (changing PHP to initialize
> extensions just-in-time, in case they're actually being used) - and it
> turned out it wasn't giving any noticeable performance gain.
>
> If there were a thousand extensions,
At 19:45 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > Nothing measurable. That was actually measured (changing PHP to
> initialize
> > extensions just-in-time, in case they're actually being used) - and it
> > turned out it wasn't giving any noticeable perform
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I think the disk weights about the same regardless of the data inside it
> :)
Yes, but 50 extensions will consume more memory than 1.
-Andrei
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented
six feet downward and covered with dir
Hi,
> >Deprecate dl()? I think it's one of the most useful functions... :)
>
> How so? I can understand that people get used to it, but it's really
> bad. extensions should be loaded in the php.ini file. There's really no
> good reason for using dl() over the php.ini method.
I agree with you
> In a few words:
> For a webserver: ban dl()
> For generic scripting: keep dl()
What's really the point of protecting people from their stupidity. If
you're going to keep it in the generic scripting engine (which I think has
lots of value), why not keep it in the webserver engine as well. There
At 23:57 06-08-01, Sander Steffann wrote:
>Hi,
>
> > >Deprecate dl()? I think it's one of the most useful functions... :)
> >
> > How so? I can understand that people get used to it, but it's really
> > bad. extensions should be loaded in the php.ini file. There's really no
> > good reason for
I disagree in two levels. First, I think that saying "We can't protect
people from their stupidity, so let's lift all bars" is just plain wrong
and a bad approach in a real world situation. Sure, it's true, but we can
definitely reduce the risks involved in common mistakes that people
make.
[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> At 19:40 06/08/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> >On Mon, 06 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > > At 07:10 06/08/2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > > > What if you use 50 different shared extensions, for different
> > > > scripts on the same box? Should you l
At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
>Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
>technical challenges in doing JIT module initialization?
It's not much of a challenge really. If we decide it should be done, it
can be done...
Zeev
--
PHP Development Mailing
[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> >Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
> >technical challenges in doing JIT module initialization?
>
> It's not much of a challenge really. If we decide it should be done,
> it can
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken
wrote:
> [Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > >Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
> > >technical challenges in doing JIT module initialization?
> >
> >
At 10:39 08-08-01, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken
>wrote:
> > [Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > > >Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
> > > >technical ch
At 09:39 AM 8/8/2001 +0200, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken
>wrote:
> > [Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > At 17:55 07-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > > >Now we're talking! I assume it is not straightforward, what are the
> > > >tec
At 11:37 28-08-01, Walter Franzini wrote:
>[sorry, my English is bad]
>
>Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>[...]
>
> > Why? Whatever extension you use on your box, put them in the php.ini.
> > dl() is never a better option.
> >
> > Zeev
>
>An example not solvable using php.ini:
>
>At S
[Walter Franzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> [sorry, my English is bad]
>
> Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Why? Whatever extension you use on your box, put them in the php.ini.
> > dl() is never a better option.
> >
> > Zeev
>
> An example not solvable using php.ini:
>
>
42 matches
Mail list logo
