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: 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] 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

[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: sockets extension...pecl it

What I was saying in my earlier email much longer drawn out email was, that the API changes have been really final since version 4.2.0. The only reason I would change it, would be if someone demonstrated a problem with the interface, which no one has for 4.2.0 - 4.2.3 versions. The only API change

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

Jason Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This extension does not belongs in PECL. It is fully platform > compatible, all other languages offer this functionality, it is actively > maintained (by me), and it will be marked stable by version 4.3 Jason, can you help me understand what needs to be

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension

First of all, If you have actually been having problems with this extension, all you need to do is open a bug report and/or email this list, and I would have been happy to take a look at fixing any possible issue. Now, to answer your question about why the api has undergone 3 changes: This is

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:59:19 -0700 "NAIK,ROSHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Extensions not accessible via cvs.php.net !! > --- > mailparse, dbplus, muscat You missed a folder 'cvsroot/pear/PECL'. Experimental is a good state for extension wh

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension

> > >Experminatal 10 to 16 months: >--- >dio, w32api, xml rpc, ncurses, pcntl, xslt > dio - appears mostly stable = hell it's going in an embedded box here:) its a straight map direct unix io stuff to php, so the api will probably not change, just grow slightly?? So

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension

On 09/09/02, "Brian Lalor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Wez Furlong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Which part of "EXPERIMENTAL" in the docs at > > http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.socket-select.php > > don't you understand? I didn't mean for that to come across quite so strongly; I apolog

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension

> For the benefit of other users i did a status check on the > general situation with extensions: > >Total extensions bundled with PHP4.2.3 = 94 ># of them that are Expermintal = 24 > > Therefore more than 25% are expermental. > > Among the experimental. > > Experimental for 1

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension

For the benefit of other users i did a status check on the general situation with extensions: Total extensions bundled with PHP4.2.3 = 94 # of them that are Expermintal = 24 Therefore more than 25% are expermental. Among the experimental. Experimental for 19 months to 2yrs

[PHP-DEV] Re: sockets extension

"Wez Furlong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Which part of "EXPERIMENTAL" in the docs at > http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.socket-select.php > don't you understand? > > If you're so desparate to have things cemented, write a patch, > post it here and we'll commit it. > If you don't have the

[PHP-DEV] Re: Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > vs. > > while(($retval==socket_read($sock, $buf, $len)) > 0) { > // do something > } > if ($retval==-1) { > print strerror(socket_last_error($sock)); > } elseif ($retval==0) { > $eof=1; > print "Eof has occured!!!"; > }

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

Coo. I never really got into the rationale behind the C API, all that kernel optimization, which is interesting. I haven't had any problems yet with fd_clear, but I don't use it intensely. (Once, maybe twice in a script.) Anyways, anything that will make the extension better is a good thing.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 18:09, J Smith wrote: > > I'm all for fixing this extension up to make it better, Great!!! > but I'm a little > concerned with totally dropping the fd_* functions. How would you mimic > their use in something like a multiplexing using a blocking call situation > after

[PHP-DEV] Re: Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

I'm all for fixing this extension up to make it better, but I'm a little concerned with totally dropping the fd_* functions. How would you mimic their use in something like a multiplexing using a blocking call situation after the change? I have no idea how it can be done without using the fd_*

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

> On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 19:29, Richard Samar wrote: > Hi Jason, > Hello Richard, > I was the "extension user" talking about a few of the problems :-) > I still had not the time to take a look at all the functions. > > > 1. Consistency problems > > a. Some functions take host, some take ip,

[PHP-DEV] Re: Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

...posting at 2:30am can lead to "interesting" sentence constructions. my appologies :-) -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PHP-DEV] Re: Sockets Extension Rework (API, etc...) VERY LONG

Hi Jason, I was the "extension user" talking about a few of the problems :-) I still had not the time to take a look at all the functions. > 1. Consistency problems > a. Some functions take host, some take ip, some take both > b. Parts of the code use socklen_t, parts use int > c.