Thanks Marcus,
Actually, persistence wasn't the only issue. I had to make sure that
the DOMDocument wasn't later modified, as that could lead to weird
behavior. Basically, what i needed was a way to pass an object by copy
rather than by reference, as it was in ZE1. I figured out a solution,
s
Olivier Doucet wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> not sure if this was mentioned on the general list but, i believe what
>> youre describing is documented in the manual under php5 classes/objects ->
>> "the basics":
>>
>> http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.basic.php
>>
>> $this is a reference to the cal
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Olivier Doucet wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> not sure if this was mentioned on the general list but, i believe what
>> youre describing is documented in the manual under php5 classes/objects ->
>> "the basics":
>>
>> http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.basic.php
>>
>
On 11.03.2009, at 20:58, shire wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Can we get this patch to release quality by this weekend?
So that people can test it on Monday/Tuesday ahead of RC1?
I don't see this being a problem, I do have a few items I'd like to
point out for feedback/suggestions:
1) C
Hi!
there is no such thing. Let's either do it now or go for 5.4.
Can we please stop trying new big features each time we approach RC? 5.3
is not last PHP version ever, and it's long overdue. Can't we just
release it without putting more and more potentially unstable changes
into it, and th
Hi,
> not sure if this was mentioned on the general list but, i believe what
> youre describing is documented in the manual under php5 classes/objects ->
> "the basics":
>
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.basic.php
>
> $this is a reference to the calling object (usually the object to
Hello Nate,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 9:25:23 PM, you wrote:
> Hi all,
> Since around alpha1, I've been doing some experimenting with closures,
> most recently in the form of a filter chain implementation, and I've
> discovered that as of beta1 (as was noted in the "removal-of-$this"
> RF
Hello Lukas,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 11:15:23 PM, you wrote:
> On 11.03.2009, at 19:55, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Last but not least, Lukas, what happened, to putting APC into core?
> That was planned for PHP 6.0.
there is no such thing. Let's either do it now or go for 5.4.
> regards,
>
shire wrote:
Hey Lukas,
Just a heads up that I should have a fix for this soonish, just running
some more tests to make sure everything works as expected (I assume
nobody else has started work on this):
9. tokenizer misses last single-line comment
(http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46817)
Ok,
Hi everyone,
I've been cleaning up the TODO items on the Wiki. I created a "Backlog" section and moved
all the items from "PHP 5.3/Future PHP releases" and "PHP 6/Undiscussed" to it. This will
serve as a general repository for any items that have been mentioned, but on which we have
not made a
On 11.03.2009, at 19:55, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Last but not least, Lukas, what happened, to putting APC into core?
That was planned for PHP 6.0.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
m...@pooteeweet.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.n
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Olivier Doucet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I posted the same topic on the general mailing list, but it appears this
> can
> be posted here, as it is open to feedbacks and is about PHP implementation
> of static functions.
>
> I'm wondering if the following behaviour is a
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 22:16 +0100, Olivier Doucet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I posted the same topic on the general mailing list, but it appears this can
> be posted here, as it is open to feedbacks and is about PHP implementation
> of static functions.
>
> I'm wondering if the following behaviour is a
Hello,
I posted the same topic on the general mailing list, but it appears this can
be posted here, as it is open to feedbacks and is about PHP implementation
of static functions.
I'm wondering if the following behaviour is a bug or a feature. The case is
quite complex, so let me explain my point
Hi Nate,
> Any thoughts or feedback would be very much appreciated. :-)
The scoping problem is very deeply related to the $this issue: Should
one be able to switch the change of a closure by re-binding it to
another object or not?
It was also an open point in my RFC on object extension in gener
Hi all,
Since around alpha1, I've been doing some experimenting with closures,
most recently in the form of a filter chain implementation, and I've
discovered that as of beta1 (as was noted in the "removal-of-$this"
RFC) that there is no way to access private or protected members of
any c
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Can we get this patch to release quality by this weekend?
So that people can test it on Monday/Tuesday ahead of RC1?
I don't see this being a problem, I do have a few items I'd like to point out
for feedback/suggestions:
1) Currently it doesn't support method level la
2009/3/11 Christopher Östlund :
> I think this behavior is a bit odd too:
>
> php -r "echo json_encode(array(0=>'test'));" // ["test"]
> php -r "echo json_encode(array(1=>'test'));" // {"1":"test"}
>
>
And
php -r "echo json_encode(array(0=>'test',3=>'foo'));" // {"0":"test","3":"foo"}
So it seem
I think this behavior is a bit odd too:
php -r "echo json_encode(array(0=>'test'));" // ["test"]
php -r "echo json_encode(array(1=>'test'));" // {"1":"test"}
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Scott MacVicar :
> > Richard Quadling wrote:
> >> 2009/3/2 Scott M
Hello Lukas,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 5:10:57 PM, you wrote:
> Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> Hi Shire,
>>
>> I run patched APC on a number of real-life applications and got more
>> than 30% speedup on XOOPS (99 req/sec instead of 60%) and 20% on
>> ZendFramework (41 req/sec instead of 32), however m
Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Christopher Jones wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone (where's Jani?) want to comment on updating (*) the
>> definition of PHP_SHLIB_SUFFIX_NAMES in acinclude.m4?
>
> I don't want to comment on stuff I don't use.. :)
> (I don't do HP-UX)
Ditto
>> The PHP_SHLIB_SUFFIX_NAMES macro is v
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 11.03.2009, at 17:10, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Anyway, it's very good job and 20-30% speedup on some real-life
applications makes sense to include it into 5.3 (from my point of view).
Makes sense to me as well, especially since I don't see any drawbacks
for non-accele
On 11.03.2009, at 17:10, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Anyway, it's very good job and 20-30% speedup on some real-life
applications makes sense to include it into 5.3 (from my point of
view).
Makes sense to me as well, especially since I don't see any drawbacks
for non-accelerated scripts.
I also t
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Shire,
>
> I run patched APC on a number of real-life applications and got more
> than 30% speedup on XOOPS (99 req/sec instead of 60%) and 20% on
> ZendFramework (41 req/sec instead of 32), however most applications
> (drupal, qdig, typo3, wordpress) didn't show signific
Hi Shire,
I run patched APC on a number of real-life applications and got more
than 30% speedup on XOOPS (99 req/sec instead of 60%) and 20% on
ZendFramework (41 req/sec instead of 32), however most applications
(drupal, qdig, typo3, wordpress) didn't show significant speed
difference. As was
Christopher Jones wrote:
Does anyone (where's Jani?) want to comment on updating (*) the
definition of PHP_SHLIB_SUFFIX_NAMES in acinclude.m4?
I don't want to comment on stuff I don't use.. :)
(I don't do HP-UX)
The PHP_SHLIB_SUFFIX_NAMES macro is very simplistic in setting the
SHLIB_SUFFIX_
shire wrote:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
Personally, I like the patch except for some small possible tweaks, and
I believe it can't make any harm with lazy loading disabled.
Thanks, what are the tweaks you'd like to see so I can try to include them?
I thought about different semantics for d
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
Personally, I like the patch except for some small possible tweaks, and
I believe it can't make any harm with lazy loading disabled.
Thanks, what are the tweaks you'd like to see so I can try to include them?
Could you provide some benchmark results?
I was hoping
28 matches
Mail list logo
