On 3.12.2004 1:08 Uhr, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Christian,
Thursday, December 2, 2004, 7:26:31 PM, you wrote:
It's not experimantal anymore in the sense of API changes. (Known) Bugs
are not there, the limitations are in the implementation, which was
fixed with dom in php5. I use it (domxml) a
Agreed. I'm against applying this patch.
At 09:13 AM 12/3/2004 +0300, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
libfcgi that is used by PHP CGI SAPI uses SIGUSR1 for graceful restart.
This feature are used by some FastCGI front-ends, mod_fastcgi for example
(see notes section on
http://www.fastcgi.com/mod_fastcgi/docs/
Let me rephrase that. This is my first contribution to
php or any open source project for that matter, and I have no idea what the
process is. Do I need to write the code first and submit a patch to someone? Do
I need to work with someone since I assume don't have CVS write access? Is the
pr
libfcgi that is used by PHP CGI SAPI uses SIGUSR1 for graceful restart.
This feature are used by some FastCGI front-ends, mod_fastcgi for example
(see notes section on
http://www.fastcgi.com/mod_fastcgi/docs/mod_fastcgi.html)
Your patch breaks this.
Also it can break scripts that require more then
Hello Christian,
Thursday, December 2, 2004, 7:26:31 PM, you wrote:
> It's not experimantal anymore in the sense of API changes. (Known) Bugs
> are not there, the limitations are in the implementation, which was
> fixed with dom in php5. I use it (domxml) a lot on my servers and
> doesn't cause
Can Someone respond to this?
With regards
Kamesh Jayachandran
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:56:13 -0800, "Kamesh Jayachandran"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi All,
> I could see a leak of 60 bytes for the following script.
> //echo "hi";
> ?>
> While investigation I found that
> SG(request_info).p
Hello Rasmus,
It seems that it should be marked as a depreciated feature IN PHP5,
but not excremental in PHP4. This would let everyone know what
the real deal is...
--
Best regards,
Jasonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thursday, December 2, 2004, 12:04:41 PM, you wr
I apologize if I am
posting this to the wrong list I am a newbie to the lists.
I would like to add
some functions to the ftp extention. Most notably at this point I am interested
in a ftp_get_resp() that returns ftp->inbuf and perhaps the response code
from the server. Or maybe it could re
> > As long as we are in "dropping EXPERIMENTAL Mode":
> > Shouldn't we drop EXPERIMENTAL from php4 domxml living in PECL?
> > AFAIRC once Cgristian Stocker said, it is stable, obviously no API
> > changes will happen etc.
> > Any reason not to drop EXPERIMENTAL from docs and pecl source for domxm
Hi --
The attached patch contains modifications to the makerpm script for php-4.3.9
for portability, security, and bug fixes. Without the patches, the generated
spec file
would not build on a Fedora Core 2 system.
Here's a summary of the changes:
- Invoke rpmbuild instead of rpm for buildin
Currently apache and lighttpd. Both are feasible to patch, but
I looked into adding this functionality to lighttpd, and that
would require a more complicated patch than this, so this won ;-)
As you said, it is not the end of the world. I am quite happy to
patch PHP myself when needed, but thought
What front-end are you using? Look it's not the end of the world but you're
the first person who seems to have wanted this and I don't see dozens of
front-ends being patched to support this. I think it's quite esoteric and I
don't like seeing more and more patches, even if they don't do anything
Yes, it could be implemented that way too, but it would require
a patch to all the different front-ends you might be using instead
of one simple patch to the backend. You might also have a front-end
that you do not have the source for, and thus cannot patch.
I consider it a worthwhile patch. It
13 matches
Mail list logo
