On Fri, April 20, 2007 3:19 am, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
>> On Thu, April 19, 2007 2:25 am, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>>> I'm at a complete loss then. Richard, what would you advise to
>>> someone
>>> in such a messy situation?
>>
>> I don't really see why anybody is getting bent out
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-20 10:19:04 +0200:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
> > On Thu, April 19, 2007 2:25 am, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> >> I'm at a complete loss then. Richard, what would you advise to someone
> >> in such a messy situation?
> >
> > I don't really see why anybody is getting bent out
Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Thu, April 19, 2007 2:25 am, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>> I'm at a complete loss then. Richard, what would you advise to someone
>> in such a messy situation?
>
> I don't really see why anybody is getting bent out of shape about
> 'almostatic' methods in PHP, but if they're
On Thu, April 19, 2007 2:25 am, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> I'm at a complete loss then. Richard, what would you advise to someone
> in such a messy situation?
I don't really see why anybody is getting bent out of shape about
'almostatic' methods in PHP, but if they're maybe gonna go away, roll
out t
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-19 10:50:19 +0200:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> >>> I wouldn't do it that way. A single class should not be a database
> >>> driver *and* manage connections.
> >> fair enough, although personally I find that going a bit far, I don't
> >> see the win in splitting up the '
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
...
>
> You'll have to change the code. I'm suggesting a nice clean way that'll
> not only conform to the probable rules of PHP 6 (which are not specific
> to PHP, at least static is not), but that'll also conform to the rules
> of good design. You're saying the changes
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-19 02:19:14 +0200:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-18 11:54:59 +0200:
> >> but a practical question for you Roman (seeing as your very much
> >> into OOP),
> >
> > I'm not very much into OOP, I'm very much into programming techniques
> > tha
On Wed, April 18, 2007 4:27 am, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-18 04:59:48 -0400:
>> >So only one of these is "kosher"
>> >static:
>> >return Services_JSON::decode($data);
>> >
>> >class:
>> >$json = new Services_JSON;
>> >return $json->decode($data);
>> >but not both.
>>
>>
On Wed, April 18, 2007 3:59 am, Chris Boget wrote:
>> So only one of these is "kosher"
>> static:
>> return Services_JSON::decode($data);
>>
>> class:
>> $json = new Services_JSON;
>> return $json->decode($data);
>> but not both.
>
> I'm not trying to start (or further add fuel to) any kind of war
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-18 11:54:59 +0200:
>> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>>> That's an incident waiting to happen, and forbidding static calls of
>>> instance methods is an (intended) anti-footshooting measure.
>> nothing an isset($this) didn't/doesn't solve - they gave m
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-18 11:54:59 +0200:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > That's an incident waiting to happen, and forbidding static calls of
> > instance methods is an (intended) anti-footshooting measure.
>
> nothing an isset($this) didn't/doesn't solve - they gave me the php gun, so
> let
On 4/17/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, April 16, 2007 10:20 am, Tijnema ! wrote:
> And btw, I think it's better not to create a new link to the class
> each time the function is called, but just use ::
> if (!function_exists('json_encode')) {
>function json_encode($d
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-18 04:59:48 -0400:
>>> So only one of these is "kosher"
>>> static:
>>> return Services_JSON::decode($data);
>>>
>>> class:
>>> $json = new Services_JSON;
>>> return $json->decode($data);
>>> but not both.
>> I'm not trying to start (or further
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-18 04:59:48 -0400:
> >So only one of these is "kosher"
> >static:
> >return Services_JSON::decode($data);
> >
> >class:
> >$json = new Services_JSON;
> >return $json->decode($data);
> >but not both.
>
> I'm not trying to start (or further add fuel to) any kind of war
So only one of these is "kosher"
static:
return Services_JSON::decode($data);
class:
$json = new Services_JSON;
return $json->decode($data);
but not both.
I'm not trying to start (or further add fuel to) any kind of war but instead
an earnest question: why not both?
thnx,
Chris
--
PHP Gen
Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Tue, April 17, 2007 4:40 pm, Jochem Maas wrote:
>> Richard Lynch wrote:
>
> So only one of these is "kosher"
> static:
> return Services_JSON::decode($data);
>
> class:
> $json = new Services_JSON;
> return $json->decode($data);
>
> but not both.
ah yes that hol
On Tue, April 17, 2007 4:40 pm, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
>> On Mon, April 16, 2007 10:20 am, Tijnema ! wrote:
>>> And btw, I think it's better not to create a new link to the class
>>> each time the function is called, but just use ::
>>> if (!function_exists('json_encode')) {
>>>
Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Mon, April 16, 2007 10:20 am, Tijnema ! wrote:
>> And btw, I think it's better not to create a new link to the class
>> each time the function is called, but just use ::
>> if (!function_exists('json_encode')) {
>>function json_encode($data) {
>>ret
On Mon, April 16, 2007 10:20 am, Tijnema ! wrote:
> And btw, I think it's better not to create a new link to the class
> each time the function is called, but just use ::
> if (!function_exists('json_encode')) {
>function json_encode($data) {
>return Services_JSON::encode($d
On Mon, April 16, 2007 9:33 am, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-16 14:03:55 +0200:
>> Jochem Maas wrote:
>> >
>> >that's going to make it completely impossible to use then isn't it.
>> >no way you could possibly wrap the class/objects functionality in a
>> wrapper
>> >functio
On Sat, April 14, 2007 3:11 am, Otto Wyss wrote:
> I've seen a json.php file somewhere in a project for cases where the
> json module isn't installed (e.g. PHP4), yet I can't find that project
> again. Is there an official or unofficial download site for json.php?
>
> Why isn't this available in th
On 4/16/07, Jochem Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Otto Wyss wrote:
> Tijnema ! wrote:
>>
>> *ROFLMFAO*...Did you actually try google for json.php?
>> Second result:
>> http://mike.teczno.com/JSON/JSON.phps
>>
> This doesn't have a json_encode but needs a $json object which then
> could be used a
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 10:49 -0400, tedd wrote:
>> At 8:41 AM -0500 4/16/07, Philip Thompson wrote:
>>> On Apr 16, 2007, at 4:40 AM, Jochem Maas wrote:
>>>
Otto Wyss wrote:
> Tijnema ! wrote:
>> *ROFLMFAO*...Did you actually try google for json.php?
>> Secon
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 10:49 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 8:41 AM -0500 4/16/07, Philip Thompson wrote:
> >On Apr 16, 2007, at 4:40 AM, Jochem Maas wrote:
> >
> >>Otto Wyss wrote:
> >>>Tijnema ! wrote:
>
> *ROFLMFAO*...Did you actually try google for json.php?
> Second result:
> http://m
At 8:41 AM -0500 4/16/07, Philip Thompson wrote:
On Apr 16, 2007, at 4:40 AM, Jochem Maas wrote:
Otto Wyss wrote:
Tijnema ! wrote:
*ROFLMFAO*...Did you actually try google for json.php?
Second result:
http://mike.teczno.com/JSON/JSON.phps
This doesn't have a json_encode but needs a $json o
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-16 14:03:55 +0200:
> Jochem Maas wrote:
> >
> >that's going to make it completely impossible to use then isn't it.
> >no way you could possibly wrap the class/objects functionality in a wrapper
> >function.
> >
> At the moment it's sufficient, since I've now time to fi
On Apr 16, 2007, at 4:40 AM, Jochem Maas wrote:
Otto Wyss wrote:
Tijnema ! wrote:
*ROFLMFAO*...Did you actually try google for json.php?
Second result:
http://mike.teczno.com/JSON/JSON.phps
This doesn't have a json_encode but needs a $json object which then
could be used as $json->encode(..
Jochem Maas wrote:
that's going to make it completely impossible to use then isn't it.
no way you could possibly wrap the class/objects functionality in a wrapper
function.
At the moment it's sufficient, since I've now time to figure out how the
Json package can be installed. Then I can switch
Otto Wyss wrote:
> Tijnema ! wrote:
>>
>> *ROFLMFAO*...Did you actually try google for json.php?
>> Second result:
>> http://mike.teczno.com/JSON/JSON.phps
>>
> This doesn't have a json_encode but needs a $json object which then
> could be used as $json->encode(...). Thanks anyway.
that's going to
Satyam wrote:
www.json.org lists all json resources in any language you care to think of.
I must admit I haven't checked each reference but the ones I have have
only packages to install and not a PHP source. Maybe I wasn't clear when
asking.
O. Wyss
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.p
Tijnema ! wrote:
*ROFLMFAO*...Did you actually try google for json.php?
Second result:
http://mike.teczno.com/JSON/JSON.phps
This doesn't have a json_encode but needs a $json object which then
could be used as $json->encode(...). Thanks anyway.
O. Wyss
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://ww
www.json.org lists all json resources in any language you care to think of.
Satyam
- Original Message -
From: "Otto Wyss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: [PHP] Json.php
I've seen a json.php file
On 4/14/07, Otto Wyss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've seen a json.php file somewhere in a project for cases where the
json module isn't installed (e.g. PHP4), yet I can't find that project
again. Is there an official or unofficial download site for json.php?
Why isn't this available in the PHP m
I've seen a json.php file somewhere in a project for cases where the
json module isn't installed (e.g. PHP4), yet I can't find that project
again. Is there an official or unofficial download site for json.php?
Why isn't this available in the PHP manual
(http://ch2.php.net/manual/de/ref.json.ph
34 matches
Mail list logo
