php-windows Digest 8 Sep 2001 06:15:53 -0000 Issue 743
Topics (messages 9235 through 9248):
Re: managing bounced mail
9235 by: Manuel Lemos
many php.exe
9236 by: Lukas Vicanek
9238 by: Eric R. Gavin
Re: webserver root
9237 by: Eric R. Gavin
Re: Status of a stable ISAPI??
9239 by: Eric R. Gavin
9240 by: Rasmus Lerdorf
9241 by: Shane Caraveo
9242 by: Paul Meagher
9243 by: Shane Caraveo
Re: array problems
9244 by: leo g. divinagracia iii
Intermittently Occuring CGI Error Update and Info
9245 by: Flint Doungchak
9246 by: Frank M. Kromann
authenticating with a novell NDS database
9247 by: leo g. divinagracia iii
Problem with Encoding
9248 by: Harry Lau - ¤Õ©ú¥J
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello P.Agenbag,
On 22-Aug-01 17:59:17, you wrote:
>Hi, this problem isn't really Windows specific...
>I have a client on one of my webservers who is causing me great
>headaches. He wrote php mail function that reads approx 17 000 e-mail
>addresses out of a mysql table, and then mails them all a standard
>newsletter.
One message for each?
>Firstly, the page bombs out ( no wonder really...) but before it does,
>it sends out as many mails as it can loop through in the 30s. I have
This is generally a bad idea to do from a Web script. It may take tens of
minutes to deliver all of them to the local mail server just to queue the
messages, depending on how you do it.
>checked the script, and he does add headers,; reply-to, return-path,
>from etc., yet, when the mail he sends starts to bounce, they all end up
>in the "root" account mailbox, as sendmail sees at as mail sent by users
>nobody@mydomain. For some reason, the Return-path header is ignored. I
>would really like to route these errors to his mailbox so he can handle
>the bouncers. Furthermore, concerning this problem of the bulk mail.
The return-path header is generated by the mail server to which you relay
you messages. So, whatever you put there is overriden by the mail server.
If you only use Windows, the only way I know to set the return-path is to
send the messages directly to a SMTP server. You may want to check these
PHP classes that can be used in combination to set the Return-Path header
as you want:
http://phpclasses.UpperDesign.com/browse.html/package/9
http://phpclasses.UpperDesign.com/browse.html/package/14
>I've had several people tell me that PHP is not the right way to send
>bulk mail, yet, I know of no other way to read addresses from a mysql
>table and send it as easily as with PHP. I was just wondering if there
>is another way of doing it with PHP so my server won't get bombarded
>with all these sendmail calls, ie, some way of pausing the sending
>process after every nth mail so sendmail can catch up. I've heard people
>talk about "sending the process to the background", but that sounds way
>too loose a term...
What you need to do is to use PHP standalone CGI executable and run a PHP
script that will do the delivery.
Anyway, if you were using Unix, I would recommend a ezmlm/qmail solution if
all users are going to get the same message. Since you are running
Windows, I don't know what would be the best tools to use, because the
simple solution of of relaying that many messages to a SMTP server is not
very efficient.
Regards,
Manuel Lemos
Web Programming Components using PHP Classes.
Look at: http://phpclasses.UpperDesign.com/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.mlemos.e-na.net/
PGP key: http://www.mlemos.e-na.net/ManuelLemos.pgp
--
Why i have sometimes in windows taskmanager many php.exe ?
I have winnt 4.0, pache 1.3.20 & php 4.0.6.
Thank you
> Why i have sometimes in windows taskmanager many php.exe ?
>
> I have winnt 4.0, pache 1.3.20 & php 4.0.6.
I'm no expert on PHP for sure; but I seem to recall reading somewhere that a
single instance of PHP.exe will be fired off for every request for a PHP
page if it's being implemented as a CGI executable (which if you see
PHP.EXE, it is.)
The solution would be to run PHP as an ISAPI extension (using blah
blahbblah_isapi.dll or whatever it is) but uh, heh... it's still a little
unstable (read: I don't think it works on less than W2K.)
Eric R. Gavin
>
> Thank you
>
>
> When including files in ASP pages using <!--#virtual="/filename.asp"--> I
> was able to include files into pages using path relative to the webserver
> root. I have tried similar in PHP using include("/filename.php"), but just
> recently learned that "/" slash charachter moves the pointer to the root
of
> the drive on which webserver directory is located on.
Be careful, unless you're running in Safe Mode and/or have carefully audited
your file system privileges. You can also delete anything you want in the
root directory as well.
I have tried and tried yet unsuccessfully to get PHP's Safe Mode to help
block this but it seems that most Safe Mode function "caveats" (the function
won't work if...) depend on the UIDs of the script and of the file/directory
in question. Well, all my UIDs constantly show up as 0, whether they're
owned by Administrators or not.
I am under the impression that PHP Safe Mode on IIS machines is mostly
non-functional because of this. But it seems that PHP support for windows
isn't terribly "there" and so nobody has been able to confirm or deny this
for me.
Eric R. Gavin
> Does the PHP staff lack resources to develop the Win32 environment
> sufficiently? (I would help if I knew how)
> Is there a database of current issues, owner of issue and due date?
(normal
> project management stuff)
Heh... couldn't resist a sarcastic post ^_^
I think that all the PHP coders out there are just pissed off that MS won a
good part of their court case. *snicker*
DOWN WITH THE EVIL BEHEMOTH!!! *lol*
Anyway, to hopefully add SOME value to this thread. I've basically been
"reading between the lines" on this issue and it seems that there just isn't
any real concern to fix this for Windows NT. It sounds like it works pretty
well with Windows 2000 and I wouldn't be surprised if "the PHP powers that
be" are basically trying to hold their breath and hope everybody moves to
W2K.
Ironically, that kind of behavior (fixing a problem by upgrading to the
latest and greatest) is the same kind of behavior that slashdot.com will
ENDLESSLY berate Bill Gates for.
Eric R. Gavin
[this has been an extremely sarcastic post]
Windows development is tough because it includes a lot of black box
programming. You send stuff into the various M$ APIs and it spews stuff
back at you and from that you try to guess what is happening in the black
box. On UNIX systems you can trace all the way down to the kernel level
and definitively figure out exactly what is happening. This removes all
the guesswork and the resulting code is more stable.
The second issue is that we have about a 50:1 ratio of UNIX developers to
Windows developers who volunteer their time to PHP development. I think
the problem is simply that historically UNIX developers have always worked
on open code and they take pride in contributing to projects like PHP.
The average Windows developer has a different mindset which for some
reason rarely results in significant code contributions to projects like
PHP.
The third issue is that in the Windows world there is a very clear and
distinct separation between the software vendor and the software user.
The vendor writes the code, the user buys it and bickers at the vendor
when it doesn't work. This is contrary to the way open source software
development works. As a user of an open source tool like PHP you are part
of the process. It doesn't matter whether you can write code, you can
contribute by helping with the documentation, writing well-prepared and
concise bug reports, testing release candidates as they appear or helping
new users on the various mailing lists. Many people who are used to the
standard vendor/user model of proprietary software aren't used to this and
they do occasionally piss off the developers of open source projects like
PHP by demanding things be fixed or they will take their business
elsewhere... Go figure.
But, at the technical level, this has nothing to do with being pissed off
at anybody, nor is it a lack of financial resources. Money rarely
translates to code. It is purely a lack of people who understand all the
intricate pitfalls of ISAPI and the other related M$ internals that is
necessary to make the PHP-ISAPI version robust. We also lack clear and
reproducable PHP-ISAPI bug reports. Most of the ones we get just say that
"sometimes it breaks". That doesn't exactly give us much to go on. Try
to do a bit of legwork and narrow down exactly under which conditions it
breaks. If it is intermittent, try to figure out if you can get it to
happen more frequently in certain circumstances, or if you can eliminate
the problem by removing something. ie. shoulder some of the initial
trial-and-error discovery phase that any problem requires before it can be
solved.
So, what can you do if you have a strong desire to see better Windows
support in PHP? Since what we really need are more strong Windows
developers, try to find us some of those. Perhaps you have some on your
staff. Encourage them to get involved with PHP. If you have plenty of
cash lying around, hire such a Windows developer and assign him the task
of helping out. Throwing money at existing PHP developers to get them to
change their priorities could also help, but that means they are not
working on something else that they previously deemed to be of higher
priority for whatever reason. I would rather see more developer resources
than a focus shift of the existing ones.
-Rasmus
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Eric R. Gavin wrote:
> > Does the PHP staff lack resources to develop the Win32 environment
> > sufficiently? (I would help if I knew how)
> > Is there a database of current issues, owner of issue and due date?
> (normal
> > project management stuff)
>
> Heh... couldn't resist a sarcastic post ^_^
>
> I think that all the PHP coders out there are just pissed off that MS won a
> good part of their court case. *snicker*
>
> DOWN WITH THE EVIL BEHEMOTH!!! *lol*
>
> Anyway, to hopefully add SOME value to this thread. I've basically been
> "reading between the lines" on this issue and it seems that there just isn't
> any real concern to fix this for Windows NT. It sounds like it works pretty
> well with Windows 2000 and I wouldn't be surprised if "the PHP powers that
> be" are basically trying to hold their breath and hope everybody moves to
> W2K.
>
> Ironically, that kind of behavior (fixing a problem by upgrading to the
> latest and greatest) is the same kind of behavior that slashdot.com will
> ENDLESSLY berate Bill Gates for.
>
> Eric R. Gavin
> [this has been an extremely sarcastic post]
I am currently working in my spare time on a way to provide a stable
platform on windows. I don't have much to comment on it yet, but it looks
promising so far.
Shane
----- Original Message -----
From: "Angie Tollerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: [PHP-WIN] Status of a stable ISAPI??
If you are going to offer anyone money to speed up this process, you could
try the guys at Active State, specifically Shane Caraveo, since he told me a
goal of his is specifically to stabliize ISAPI on windows. I believe Shane
is on this mailing list..I'm surprised he hasn't answered the postline yet.
Maybe he will?
Angie Tollerson
Alliance Technologies
Web Programmer
(515)245-7628
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Asendorf, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/07/01 10:02AM >>>
I recently sent an email looking to pay Zend to work on it (I kind of need
it for the OCI8 Persistent Logon), I have yet to hear back from them. I
sent one, and a sales person sent me back a form note to look at their
support options and they wouldn't have any problem. I sent him back an
email that the problem I was having was mostly related to the stability of
the ISAPI module as opposed to the OCI8 extension (my guess, 80% 20%,
respectively); and, that he'd better check with their programmers before
assuring me that a $180 support request would cover fixing the entire ISAPI
module. That was yesterday. I haven't heard back from him yet.
We've got some money out here. We're willing to give it to these hard
working programmers if they want to work on it. I'm as big a fan of Open
Source as the next guy, but we all need to eat. Hell, it's obvious that we
have more money than knowledge! We use Win don't we?
As for answering your question. I think it still has some stability issues,
mostly with individual extensions not following thread safe guidelines more
than anything. In other words, I don't have any/many problems unless I call
some odd function.
---------------------
Founder of
The 'What Kind of Idiot Uses PHP with IIS with Oracle on NT?' Consortium
Members: John Asendorf, Thomas Kryger, Florian Clever, Ron Woods, Bod
John Asendorf - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Applications Developer
http://www.lcounty.com - NEW FEATURES ADDED DAILY!
Licking County, Ohio, USA
740-349-3631
Aliquando et insanire iucundum est
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PHP-WIN] Status of a stable ISAPI??
>
>
> Does anyone know what the development status is regarding a
> stable release
> of the ISAPI module?
> Have the problems been pinpointed and is there a plan to fix them?
> Does the PHP staff lack resources to develop the Win32 environment
> sufficiently? (I would help if I knew how)
> Is there a database of current issues, owner of issue and due
> date? (normal
> project management stuff)
>
> If I remember correctly, it's been almost 2 years since the
> release of the
> SAPI modules and I am still hearing of unstable behavior
> while using the
> ISAPI module instead of CGI. I am frustrated at the lack of
> progress in
> fixing these quirks. I also get frustrated because I don't
> know if I'll have
> to put up with these quirks for another 6 months or 6 days.
>
> On a better note, I am using PHP 4.0.6/ISAPI in a single host
> production
> environment running on IIS4 sp6 without problems. I do
> encounter problems
> when we add virtual hosts to the server.
>
> I hope I didn't overstep the bounds by asking these
> questions. I am not
> skilled enough to aid the actual development of this product
> but I am a
> great proponent of PHP and wish to see it progress.
>
> Thanks for you reponses!
> Steve Hall
> Novell, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interesting observations, Rasmus.
I thought I heard that some developers at Zend were invited to Redmond to
be enlightened about ISAPI? Furthermore, didn't they mention that they
were expecting a big improvement in the stability of the ISAPI module as a
result of this meeting? I have no recollection of where I read this so
take what I say with a grain of salt until you hear otherwise.
At any rate, it would seem a better strategy to seek such invitations from
Microsoft than to throw alot of effort at reverse engineering the black
box?
Regards,
Paul Meagher
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eric R. Gavin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-WIN] Re: Status of a stable ISAPI??
> Windows development is tough because it includes a lot of black box
> programming. You send stuff into the various M$ APIs and it spews stuff
> back at you and from that you try to guess what is happening in the black
> box. On UNIX systems you can trace all the way down to the kernel level
> and definitively figure out exactly what is happening. This removes all
> the guesswork and the resulting code is more stable.
>
> The second issue is that we have about a 50:1 ratio of UNIX developers to
> Windows developers who volunteer their time to PHP development. I think
> the problem is simply that historically UNIX developers have always
worked
> on open code and they take pride in contributing to projects like PHP.
> The average Windows developer has a different mindset which for some
> reason rarely results in significant code contributions to projects like
> PHP.
>
> The third issue is that in the Windows world there is a very clear and
> distinct separation between the software vendor and the software user.
> The vendor writes the code, the user buys it and bickers at the vendor
> when it doesn't work. This is contrary to the way open source software
> development works. As a user of an open source tool like PHP you are
part
> of the process. It doesn't matter whether you can write code, you can
> contribute by helping with the documentation, writing well-prepared and
> concise bug reports, testing release candidates as they appear or helping
> new users on the various mailing lists. Many people who are used to the
> standard vendor/user model of proprietary software aren't used to this
and
> they do occasionally piss off the developers of open source projects like
> PHP by demanding things be fixed or they will take their business
> elsewhere... Go figure.
>
> But, at the technical level, this has nothing to do with being pissed off
> at anybody, nor is it a lack of financial resources. Money rarely
> translates to code. It is purely a lack of people who understand all the
> intricate pitfalls of ISAPI and the other related M$ internals that is
> necessary to make the PHP-ISAPI version robust. We also lack clear and
> reproducable PHP-ISAPI bug reports. Most of the ones we get just say
that
> "sometimes it breaks". That doesn't exactly give us much to go on. Try
> to do a bit of legwork and narrow down exactly under which conditions it
> breaks. If it is intermittent, try to figure out if you can get it to
> happen more frequently in certain circumstances, or if you can eliminate
> the problem by removing something. ie. shoulder some of the initial
> trial-and-error discovery phase that any problem requires before it can
be
> solved.
>
> So, what can you do if you have a strong desire to see better Windows
> support in PHP? Since what we really need are more strong Windows
> developers, try to find us some of those. Perhaps you have some on your
> staff. Encourage them to get involved with PHP. If you have plenty of
> cash lying around, hire such a Windows developer and assign him the task
> of helping out. Throwing money at existing PHP developers to get them to
> change their priorities could also help, but that means they are not
> working on something else that they previously deemed to be of higher
> priority for whatever reason. I would rather see more developer
resources
> than a focus shift of the existing ones.
>
> -Rasmus
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Eric R. Gavin wrote:
>
> > > Does the PHP staff lack resources to develop the Win32 environment
> > > sufficiently? (I would help if I knew how)
> > > Is there a database of current issues, owner of issue and due date?
> > (normal
> > > project management stuff)
> >
> > Heh... couldn't resist a sarcastic post ^_^
> >
> > I think that all the PHP coders out there are just pissed off that MS
won a
> > good part of their court case. *snicker*
> >
> > DOWN WITH THE EVIL BEHEMOTH!!! *lol*
> >
> > Anyway, to hopefully add SOME value to this thread. I've basically
been
> > "reading between the lines" on this issue and it seems that there just
isn't
> > any real concern to fix this for Windows NT. It sounds like it works
pretty
> > well with Windows 2000 and I wouldn't be surprised if "the PHP powers
that
> > be" are basically trying to hold their breath and hope everybody moves
to
> > W2K.
> >
> > Ironically, that kind of behavior (fixing a problem by upgrading to the
> > latest and greatest) is the same kind of behavior that slashdot.com
will
> > ENDLESSLY berate Bill Gates for.
> >
> > Eric R. Gavin
> > [this has been an extremely sarcastic post]
>
>
> --
> PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Zeev, Andi and myself went to Microsoft for a few days, and Zeev and Andi
did work out some issues as a result of that. But stability of PHP goes
much further than the ISAPI interface. Thread safety is a key issue, and
not many of the developers working on PHP develop under an environment that
requires thread safety. Right now, the place it's most important is on
Windows, perhaps with Apache 2.0 that will change. Without many developers
working on Windows, thread safety issues will not get as tested or worked on
as much as it needs to be. That said, I think the thread safety in the core
should be very good, but when you get to the various extension modules that
is less clear and more problematic. A good result of that visit is that we
now have some contacts at Microsoft for those times that we run into issues
where we need their input.
Shane
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Meagher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-WIN] Re: Status of a stable ISAPI??
> Interesting observations, Rasmus.
>
> I thought I heard that some developers at Zend were invited to Redmond to
> be enlightened about ISAPI? Furthermore, didn't they mention that they
> were expecting a big improvement in the stability of the ISAPI module as a
> result of this meeting? I have no recollection of where I read this so
> take what I say with a grain of salt until you hear otherwise.
>
> At any rate, it would seem a better strategy to seek such invitations from
> Microsoft than to throw alot of effort at reverse engineering the black
> box?
>
> Regards,
> Paul Meagher
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Eric R. Gavin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 2:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [PHP-WIN] Re: Status of a stable ISAPI??
>
>
> > Windows development is tough because it includes a lot of black box
> > programming. You send stuff into the various M$ APIs and it spews stuff
> > back at you and from that you try to guess what is happening in the
black
> > box. On UNIX systems you can trace all the way down to the kernel level
> > and definitively figure out exactly what is happening. This removes all
> > the guesswork and the resulting code is more stable.
> >
> > The second issue is that we have about a 50:1 ratio of UNIX developers
to
> > Windows developers who volunteer their time to PHP development. I think
> > the problem is simply that historically UNIX developers have always
> worked
> > on open code and they take pride in contributing to projects like PHP.
> > The average Windows developer has a different mindset which for some
> > reason rarely results in significant code contributions to projects like
> > PHP.
> >
> > The third issue is that in the Windows world there is a very clear and
> > distinct separation between the software vendor and the software user.
> > The vendor writes the code, the user buys it and bickers at the vendor
> > when it doesn't work. This is contrary to the way open source software
> > development works. As a user of an open source tool like PHP you are
> part
> > of the process. It doesn't matter whether you can write code, you can
> > contribute by helping with the documentation, writing well-prepared and
> > concise bug reports, testing release candidates as they appear or
helping
> > new users on the various mailing lists. Many people who are used to the
> > standard vendor/user model of proprietary software aren't used to this
> and
> > they do occasionally piss off the developers of open source projects
like
> > PHP by demanding things be fixed or they will take their business
> > elsewhere... Go figure.
> >
> > But, at the technical level, this has nothing to do with being pissed
off
> > at anybody, nor is it a lack of financial resources. Money rarely
> > translates to code. It is purely a lack of people who understand all
the
> > intricate pitfalls of ISAPI and the other related M$ internals that is
> > necessary to make the PHP-ISAPI version robust. We also lack clear and
> > reproducable PHP-ISAPI bug reports. Most of the ones we get just say
> that
> > "sometimes it breaks". That doesn't exactly give us much to go on. Try
> > to do a bit of legwork and narrow down exactly under which conditions it
> > breaks. If it is intermittent, try to figure out if you can get it to
> > happen more frequently in certain circumstances, or if you can eliminate
> > the problem by removing something. ie. shoulder some of the initial
> > trial-and-error discovery phase that any problem requires before it can
> be
> > solved.
> >
> > So, what can you do if you have a strong desire to see better Windows
> > support in PHP? Since what we really need are more strong Windows
> > developers, try to find us some of those. Perhaps you have some on your
> > staff. Encourage them to get involved with PHP. If you have plenty of
> > cash lying around, hire such a Windows developer and assign him the task
> > of helping out. Throwing money at existing PHP developers to get them
to
> > change their priorities could also help, but that means they are not
> > working on something else that they previously deemed to be of higher
> > priority for whatever reason. I would rather see more developer
> resources
> > than a focus shift of the existing ones.
> >
> > -Rasmus
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Eric R. Gavin wrote:
> >
> > > > Does the PHP staff lack resources to develop the Win32 environment
> > > > sufficiently? (I would help if I knew how)
> > > > Is there a database of current issues, owner of issue and due date?
> > > (normal
> > > > project management stuff)
> > >
> > > Heh... couldn't resist a sarcastic post ^_^
> > >
> > > I think that all the PHP coders out there are just pissed off that MS
> won a
> > > good part of their court case. *snicker*
> > >
> > > DOWN WITH THE EVIL BEHEMOTH!!! *lol*
> > >
> > > Anyway, to hopefully add SOME value to this thread. I've basically
> been
> > > "reading between the lines" on this issue and it seems that there just
> isn't
> > > any real concern to fix this for Windows NT. It sounds like it works
> pretty
> > > well with Windows 2000 and I wouldn't be surprised if "the PHP powers
> that
> > > be" are basically trying to hold their breath and hope everybody moves
> to
> > > W2K.
> > >
> > > Ironically, that kind of behavior (fixing a problem by upgrading to
the
> > > latest and greatest) is the same kind of behavior that slashdot.com
> will
> > > ENDLESSLY berate Bill Gates for.
> > >
> > > Eric R. Gavin
> > > [this has been an extremely sarcastic post]
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
"Svensson, B.A.T." wrote:
>
> Have you consider to write a recursive
> function to explore all the sublevels?
>
>
i was thinking of the same thing. btw, are there dynamic pointers in
PHP? cause a binary tree structure would be better for this.
btw, watch out for recursive code that goes on forever. make sure the
code will terminate somewhere... ;-))) (been there, done that...)
--
Leo G. Divinagracia III
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All,
I've been working, with others, and trying to figure out the error:
CGI Error
The specified CGI application misbehaved by not returning a complete set of
HTTP headers. The headers it did return are:.
If you get the error consistently, i.e. everytime you try and load a page,
the cause is some type of permissions setting. See the install.txt in yor
PHP directory. MS also has a nice KB article at:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q160/4/22.asp
However, the problems gets way more interesting if your are running PHP in
CGI mode on IIS. You MAY get an intermittent CGI error similar to the one
above. An explanation of the problems, according to MS, can be found at:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q217/2/02.ASP
A supposed fix to the problem can be found at:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q142/6/76.asp
Now, the interesting part is that on my configuration (Win2K, PHP 4.0.6) the
fix is already completed as specified in the KB article, in fact, there is
an extra 512 at the end of the reg. key string they say you should edit.
Don't know why. Yet, I still get the CGI error intermittently.
So, not knowing very much about programming, it seems that PHP isn't closing
correctly or something and after enough requests that run PHP and call a
desktop heap, Windows runs out of memory to create a new desktop heap. The
explanation at the MS KB is very consistent with what I am experiencing.
That articles is at:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q156/4/84.asp
My question to Phil, and Daniel, and the development team for PHP, and even
Frank is that do these behaviors jog anything in those brains of yours? I
guess I wanted to document everything as much as possible to help the
developers, and because I needed to prove to myself that I'm not crazy.
It's obviously not PHP alone because I can sit at the console all day with
the php.exe -i command and not get an error. But the combination of
Header("Location: blah.html") with something (say the MS_SQL module the only
module running) causes Windows to run out of memory.
I've since gone to the ISAPI module and although that fixes the CGI errors,
it seems to have a totally different set of problems (which I know it is
supposed to have).
In any case, something changed somewhere (in a version of PHP or Windows)
because this problem never used to happen. I'm trying to back track and see
where it was last stable.
Thanks everyone, and I hope this helps provide some insight to the problem.
-Flint
_________________________________________________
Flint Doungchak, President
Net Solutions, LLC
840 Lawrence Street
Eugene, OR 97401
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice +1 541 345-7087
Fax +1 541 485-5519
http://www.netsolutionsllc.com
***************************************************************
The contents of this transmission may be confidential in
nature and should be directed only to the person to whom it
is addressed. Do not read, copy, or disseminate this
material unless you are the intended recipient. If this
transmission reached you in error, please forward the e-mail
to the sender to advise, then destroy the transmission you
received. Thank you.
Hi Flint,
I know you asked me about this problem while I was in Denmark but I havent had any
time to look into it yet.
I'm planning on using some time on it this weekend and the following week so if you
have a short php script I can use to reproduce this I might be able to help.
I would say that you should only get CGI errors if the php process terminates before
sending any output for some reson.
- Frank
> Hi All,
>
> I've been working, with others, and trying to figure out the error:
>
> CGI Error
>
> The specified CGI application misbehaved by not returning a complete set of
> HTTP headers. The headers it did return are:.
>
> If you get the error consistently, i.e. everytime you try and load a page,
> the cause is some type of permissions setting. See the install.txt in yor
> PHP directory. MS also has a nice KB article at:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q160/4/22.asp
>
> However, the problems gets way more interesting if your are running PHP in
> CGI mode on IIS. You MAY get an intermittent CGI error similar to the one
> above. An explanation of the problems, according to MS, can be found at:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q217/2/02.ASP
>
> A supposed fix to the problem can be found at:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q142/6/76.asp
>
> Now, the interesting part is that on my configuration (Win2K, PHP 4.0.6) the
> fix is already completed as specified in the KB article, in fact, there is
> an extra 512 at the end of the reg. key string they say you should edit.
> Don't know why. Yet, I still get the CGI error intermittently.
>
> So, not knowing very much about programming, it seems that PHP isn't closing
> correctly or something and after enough requests that run PHP and call a
> desktop heap, Windows runs out of memory to create a new desktop heap. The
> explanation at the MS KB is very consistent with what I am experiencing.
> That articles is at:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q156/4/84.asp
>
> My question to Phil, and Daniel, and the development team for PHP, and even
> Frank is that do these behaviors jog anything in those brains of yours? I
> guess I wanted to document everything as much as possible to help the
> developers, and because I needed to prove to myself that I'm not crazy.
>
> It's obviously not PHP alone because I can sit at the console all day with
> the php.exe -i command and not get an error. But the combination of
> Header("Location: blah.html") with something (say the MS_SQL module the only
> module running) causes Windows to run out of memory.
>
> I've since gone to the ISAPI module and although that fixes the CGI errors,
> it seems to have a totally different set of problems (which I know it is
> supposed to have).
>
> In any case, something changed somewhere (in a version of PHP or Windows)
> because this problem never used to happen. I'm trying to back track and see
> where it was last stable.
>
> Thanks everyone, and I hope this helps provide some insight to the problem.
>
> -Flint
>
> _________________________________________________
> Flint Doungchak, President
> Net Solutions, LLC
> 840 Lawrence Street
> Eugene, OR 97401
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Voice +1 541 345-7087
> Fax +1 541 485-5519
> http://www.netsolutionsllc.com
>
> ***************************************************************
> The contents of this transmission may be confidential in
> nature and should be directed only to the person to whom it
> is addressed. Do not read, copy, or disseminate this
> material unless you are the intended recipient. If this
> transmission reached you in error, please forward the e-mail
> to the sender to advise, then destroy the transmission you
> received. Thank you.
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
just curious, has anyone run into some libraries or code that will allow
me to authenticate a user via novell's NDS database? is that even
possible? thanks...
--
Leo G. Divinagracia III
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I want to include a string into a PNG by ImageTTFText(),
where some of the chars are encoded in BIG5.
I have found the revalent TTF for BIG5.
The output really gives some Traditional Chinese chars,
but the chars are not those I want.
(I think this problem also exist in Shift-JIS encoding.)
Would anyone give me some suggestions?
Thanks a lot :)
Harry
