Can't both (brackets and non) be supported? I have some sick people in
my own company that would LOVE if they could embed multiple namespaces
in the same file. In circles around my own cubicle, engineers prefer
to write one class per namespace, per file, as God intended. Various
Perl, Pyth
In general I'd prefer one namespace per-file, at least as a best
practice and common advertised use. For this case it doesn't really
matter too much whether it's with or without brackets. My preference is
without because then you just stick it at the top and don't have an
extra level of indentation
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Gregory,
>
> Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 8:01:56 PM, you wrote:
>
>> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
stream wrapper. Here is an example:
oops.broken://UNC/path
>>> I wonder if .://UNC/path is treated as "."+//UNC/path (and the same
>>> for ..). It should anywa
Playing around with PHP 6 I noticed that some functions start to
complain about conversion of null values to strings:
php -d error_reporting=65535 -r 'var_dump(urldecode(null));'
Warning: urldecode() expects parameter 1 to be strictly a binary string,
null given in Command line code on line 1
> > but it may also be possible to do all this in the request startup I
> think...?
> >
> I don't like the idea to keep adding stuff in request startup, at least,
> please make it optional. The overhead for request startup and cleanup
> have becoming higher and higher, which make PHP become slower
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:55 PM, George Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > but it may also be possible to do all this in the request startup I
> think...?
> >
> I don't like the idea to keep adding stuff in request startup, at least,
> please make it optional.
It is optional, it can be dis
but it may also be possible to do all this in the request startup I think...?
I don't like the idea to keep adding stuff in request startup, at least,
please make it optional. The overhead for request startup and cleanup
have becoming higher and higher, which make PHP become slower and
sl
This is without an opcode cache I presume?
On 25-Mar-08, at 6:46 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Sorry, but I didn't store benchmarks before re2c patch so I can just
compare PHP_5_3 and PHP_5_2.
Drupal 20% faster
Qdig 2% faster
typo3 30% faster
wordpress 15% faster
xoops 10% faster
Not all the sp
> > Is there a generic solution for SAPIs?
>
> The stuff is pretty generic, just check how it's done for
> sapi/cgi/cgi_main.c in
> function sapi_cgi_activate(). (IIRC :)
>
> I think I even put some comments in there..
Yes, looks good. Even the host-based config could be enabled by NSAPI.
The
Hello Gregory,
Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 8:01:56 PM, you wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>> stream wrapper. Here is an example:
>>>
>>> oops.broken://UNC/path
>>
>> I wonder if .://UNC/path is treated as "."+//UNC/path (and the same
>> for ..). It should anyway :) However I'm not too worried
Uwe Schindler kirjoitti:
> As of php 5.3, it is possible to have a per directory configuration,
> either using the system php.ini or using a .htaccess-like php.ini
> (.user.ini). The concept is based on what you have in htscanner but
in
> a much better way (same syntax than in any php.ini).
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Uwe Schindler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > As of php 5.3, it is possible to have a per directory configuration,
> > > > either using the system php.ini or using a .htaccess-like php.ini
> > > > (.user.ini). The concept is based on what you have in htscann
> > > As of php 5.3, it is possible to have a per directory configuration,
> > > either using the system php.ini or using a .htaccess-like php.ini
> > > (.user.ini). The concept is based on what you have in htscanner but
> in
> > > a much better way (same syntax than in any php.ini). The goal i
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> stream wrapper. Here is an example:
>>
>> oops.broken://UNC/path
>
> I wonder if .://UNC/path is treated as "."+//UNC/path (and the same
> for ..). It should anyway :) However I'm not too worried without
> pathes like foo.bar - not likely to have path without any slash
Hello David,
Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 2:22:31 PM, you wrote:
> of course. how can you measure scanner performance with an opcode
> cache on :p
Note that Dmitry wrote that he did not isolate the scanner performance
alone. I would assume that the bigger parts of listed speedups are based on
othe
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:11 PM, George Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pierre,
>
>
> > As of php 5.3, it is possible to have a per directory configuration,
> > either using the system php.ini or using a .htaccess-like php.ini
> > (.user.ini). The concept is based on what you have in htscanner
Pierre,
As of php 5.3, it is possible to have a per directory configuration,
either using the system php.ini or using a .htaccess-like php.ini
(.user.ini). The concept is based on what you have in htscanner but in
a much better way (same syntax than in any php.ini). The goal is to
enable this fe
stream wrapper. Here is an example:
oops.broken://UNC/path
I wonder if .://UNC/path is treated as "."+//UNC/path (and the same for
..). It should anyway :) However I'm not too worried without pathes like
foo.bar - not likely to have path without any slashes unless it's . or
.., and if you d
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
:(
Any ideas how to support this?
Dmitry.
Stefan Walk wrote:
On Monday 24 March 2008 20:28:49 Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Beats me, I'm sure posix-based systems don't, but it is called "Uniform
Naming Convention" so it's possible somebody might implement it
The fact that i
Hi Pierre,
I'll put up another RFC before I make any moves other than those already
discussed. Since I know how now an' all.
For anything related to builds (outside your immediate needs for
manual builds of PECL releases for each PHP release), please hang your
horses. I have began to write o
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
>
> > About the build themselves (and only the builds, versionning problem
> > is solved, almost), I really need to know what you are going to do. I
> > know that you will provide DLLs but I don't really know ho
Hi Pierre,
About the build themselves (and only the builds, versionning problem
is solved, almost), I really need to know what you are going to do. I
know that you will provide DLLs but I don't really know how, where and
from which sources. Am I right that all you want to do now is to
provide DL
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm sorry if you taken any of my answers badly or personally, none of
> > them was meant to hurt you or your ideas. It is a discussion about a
> > RFC and I try to understand what you are asking or discussing. I also
> >
:(
Any ideas how to support this?
Dmitry.
Stefan Walk wrote:
On Monday 24 March 2008 20:28:49 Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Beats me, I'm sure posix-based systems don't, but it is called "Uniform
Naming Convention" so it's possible somebody might implement it
The fact that it's called "uniform" d
On Monday 24 March 2008 20:28:49 Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > Beats me, I'm sure posix-based systems don't, but it is called "Uniform
> > Naming Convention" so it's possible somebody might implement it
>
> The fact that it's called "uniform" doesn't mean it works in anything
> but Windows :) In UN
Hi Hartmut,
I discovered tonight that I have full PECL karma, so the secondary
question is: does anyone have any objection to my making all (or most...
I'd leave the package.xml ones for now) PECL modules fit this versioning
model?
i'm fine with it, and i already changed pecl-gen / CodeGen_P
I'm going to commit it tomorrow.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Gregory Beaver wrote:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
I hope it's the last iteration, but check me anyway.
The patch is based on latest Gregory's patch.
- optimized out strncpy() calls
- zend_resolve_path() replaced with php_resolve_path()
- improved php_
Hi Pierre,
OK you lost me completely. You would rather have no version capability
in
PECL beyond the module itself? What's so confusing about 'if you have
PECL
code that is specific to PHP 6 use the PHP_6_0 branch in PECL'?
I still have no idea what you are talking about. For which build
Hi George
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Highly optimized protocol to avoid overhead.
> Built-in process manager to dynamically start/stop children processes
> base on current load.
> PHP configuration overridden via .htaccess
As of php 5.3, it is possible to
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> I hope it's the last iteration, but check me anyway.
> The patch is based on latest Gregory's patch.
>
> - optimized out strncpy() calls
> - zend_resolve_path() replaced with php_resolve_path()
> - improved php_resolve_path() to resolve "file://..."
> - fixed possible double-
Btw, is this a multi-threaded SAPI or is it a FastCGI replacement? (i.e.
multi-process). Just curious...
Like FastCGI PHP, PHP with LiteSpeed SAPI run out of server process in
multi-process mode, the main difference to FastCGI SAPI is:
Highly optimized protocol to avoid overhead.
Built-in
The opcode cache skips out the scanning, parsing and compilation steps
after the first run.
So if you have an opcode cache you're only going to see benefit the
first time before its stored.
Scott
Christian Schneider wrote:
David Z|lke wrote:
of course. how can you measure scanner performan
Of course.
Dmitry.
Christian Schneider wrote:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Drupal 20% faster
Qdig 2% faster
typo3 30% faster
wordpress 15% faster
xoops 10% faster
Out of curiosity: I assume this is without an opcode cache?
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubs
David Zülke wrote:
> of course. how can you measure scanner performance with an opcode cache
> on :p
That's what I thought. It also means my initial excitement is gone as we
(as anyone running anything but a personal home page) are using opcode
caches anyway. I basically just wanted it to be menti
of course. how can you measure scanner performance with an opcode
cache on :p
David
Am 25.03.2008 um 14:15 schrieb Christian Schneider:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Drupal 20% faster
Qdig 2% faster
typo3 30% faster
wordpress 15% faster
xoops 10% faster
Out of curiosity: I assume this is without
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Drupal 20% faster
> Qdig 2% faster
> typo3 30% faster
> wordpress 15% faster
> xoops 10% faster
Out of curiosity: I assume this is without an opcode cache?
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Dmitry, Johannes
wow! so we all together made pretty good progress. We really need to
announce that, maybe to make people help in getting the release straight?
marcus
Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 11:46:20 AM, you wrote:
> Sorry, but I didn't store benchmarks before re2c patch so I can just
+1 to multiple namespaces with brackets.
Dimitar Isusov
Same here. Multiple namespaces w/o brackets are just wrong.
David
Am 25.03.2008 um 02:44 schrieb Ben Ramsey:
On 3/23/08 5:05 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Johannes Schlüter schrieb:
I said in some previous post I won't like multiple namespaces per
file
using the 2nd syntax. So imo: either
Em Ter, 2008-03-25 às 12:35 +0100, Lars Strojny escreveu:
> Would that mean that the following code does not work anymore?
>
> class Foo
> {
> protected function method()
> {
> }
>
> public function doSomething(Foo $foo)
> {
> $foo->method();
> }
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 25.03.2008, 11:04 + schrieb Robin Fernandes:
[...]
> My preference would be to completely remove this behaviour, by which
> protected methods can be invoked from outside of their declaring
> class's hierarchy. In other words, remove all uses of
> zend_get_function_root_cla
Hey all,
In main/SAPI.c's sapi_startup, sf->ini_entries is set to NULL but is not
freed, which can cause a memory leak, e.g. in sapi/embed/php_embed.c which
calls that function after mallocing ini_entries (php_embed.c tries to free
that memory later, but the free is guarded by a check on ini_entr
Hi Felipe,
On 25/03/2008, Felipe Pena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do we keep the support added in http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=37632
> (that isn't supported in C++, for instance)
My preference would be to completely remove this behaviour, by which
protected methods can be invoked
Sorry, but I didn't store benchmarks before re2c patch so I can just
compare PHP_5_3 and PHP_5_2.
Drupal 20% faster
Qdig 2% faster
typo3 30% faster
wordpress 15% faster
xoops 10% faster
Not all the speedup caused by re2c scanner, but it makes significant
part of it.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Marcus
Hello Dmitry,
Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 11:19:08 AM, you wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
> The ext/tokenizer/tests/token_get_all_variation17.phpt is probably the
There are probably more changes coming so there is not so much need to
change this part right now.
> last broken test. It has a memleak. I am not
Hi Marcus,
The ext/tokenizer/tests/token_get_all_variation17.phpt is probably the
last broken test. It has a memleak. I am not trying to fix it because
you should know it much better, also re2c scanner is not ported to HEAD
yet and you may keep changes that must be ported.
BTW PHP_5_3 became
Hi Andi,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Litespeed != lighttpd
I know, I only said that I'm a lighttpd user :)
Cheers,
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, vi
Pierre Joye wrote:
Not
sure if the rest affects codegen, do you check the version format
itself or do you realy on the pear installer for this task?
it is not checked yet, but it is an open TODO item anyway ...
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe, Principal Support Engineer
.
Discover new MySQ
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Hartmut Holzgraefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steph Fox wrote:
>
> > I discovered tonight that I have full PECL karma, so the secondary
> > question is: does anyone have any objection to my making all (or most...
> > I'd leave the package.xml ones for now) PEC
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You can checkout pecl module branch PHP_5_2 and see all the symlinked
> >> extensions there for PHP_5_2, plus intl...
> >
> > I know that but that does not tell me what you are talking about now.
>
> OK you lost me c
Steph Fox wrote:
I discovered tonight that I have full PECL karma, so the secondary
question is: does anyone have any objection to my making all (or most...
I'd leave the package.xml ones for now) PECL modules fit this versioning
model?
i'm fine with it, and i already changed pecl-gen / Code
I hope it's the last iteration, but check me anyway.
The patch is based on latest Gregory's patch.
- optimized out strncpy() calls
- zend_resolve_path() replaced with php_resolve_path()
- improved php_resolve_path() to resolve "file://..."
- fixed possible double-free issue in _php_stream_open_wr
52 matches
Mail list logo
