Am 13.09.2010 20:35, schrieb Benjamin Eberlei:
Developers are clearly not using doc blocks for their static
configuration needs currently, even though the possibility exists. It
just feels wrong.
incidentally, I do;)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visi
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:51:32 +0100, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the current implementation instantiates an object
each time getAnnotation() is called, but it was proposed to change this
into a lazy-loading mechanism with the same instance returned every time
for each annotation.
Hi!
If I'm not mistaken, the current implementation instantiates an object
each time getAnnotation() is called, but it was proposed to change this
into a lazy-loading mechanism with the same instance returned every time
for each annotation. In that case, we'd only need to validate that one
time.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:02:34 +0100, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
Hi!
The best (in the sense of "most similar to what we have today") syntax I
can think of is to define annotations exactly the same way was you'd
define arrays, but replace "array" with the annotation name (plus a
prefix). I think thi
Hi!
The best (in the sense of "most similar to what we have today") syntax I
can think of is to define annotations exactly the same way was you'd
define arrays, but replace "array" with the annotation name (plus a
prefix). I think this looks like PHP:
We have here at least two non-PHP construc
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:20:31 +0100, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
The proposed annotations are basically object instances that are
returned when you call getAnnotations. There are no itemized lists of
rules. I
don't see how this is complex.
They aren't just object instances, since they also have
Strictly speaking yes, you can implement everything you want with PHP
Docblocks. But that argument is comparable to telling a nearly blind man
that his glasses are good enough although a more suited treatment
exists. Just because there exists an approach that stumbles half the way
in a bad way, sho
Hi!
PHPDocs are for what their name suggests, for comments, not for runtime
code information. They allow arbitrary characters, their intent is for
human-readible documentation only.
Nothing prevents us from using phpdocs for non-human-reading purposes.
Actually, there is quite a lot of code t
At 19:25 13/09/2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:46:42 +0100, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I wasn't talking about the patch, I was talking about the need of end
users to understand yet another new concept and syntax. PHP used to be
a language one could pick up over a weekend. I'm hap
Hi!
- LSB. Can you explain from the top of your head when when the called
scope is reset or not (e.g. with parent::, self::, className::, possibly
in non-static contexts) in a function call? I can't.
It's not that hard. Keywords forward, classnames don't.
- Namespaces. It takes a while to me
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Benjamin,
>
> Strictly speaking annotations are not *needed*. They simply aren't - you
> can do anything and everything you might want to do without them. You can
> argue that the value they bring is very important, and that it ou
Hello Rasmus,
Isn't any configuration by xml or ini files runtime configuration? Any
configuration that is not resulting in code being generated or code
being op-code cached will be-executed on every single request. That
applies to almost any configuration mechanism used in PHP applications.
Sure
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:46:42 +0100, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I wasn't talking about the patch, I was talking about the need of end
users to understand yet another new concept and syntax. PHP used to be
a language one could pick up over a weekend. I'm happy it didn't
stagnate and stay where
Hi!
[ExpectedException("InvalidArgumentException")]
[ExpectedException("InvalidArgumentException", "Expected message", 40")]
[Validation(array("type" => "EMail", "options" => array("checkMX" =>
true))]
This doesn't look like PHP code. In PHP code, nether [] by itself, nor
[ClassName('string
On 9/13/10 11:59 AM, Bharat Nagwani wrote:
Hello,
I am getting this error when using pcntl_fork. The OS is bsd and php
ver is 5.2.3 used in cgi mode.
Fatal error: Call to undefined function pcntl_fork() in...
I have included the ext/pcntl files in the php make. Do I need
another flag/library t
On 9/13/10 8:38 AM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
> The primary target for annotations are framework and library integrations:
> validation, forms, metadata mapping, static mvc configuration such as
> routing, view selection or acls. Why do these features not exist with
> current php libraries yet? Becau
Hello,
I am getting this error when using pcntl_fork. The OS is bsd and php ver is
5.2.3 used in cgi mode.
Fatal error: Call to undefined function pcntl_fork() in...
I have included the ext/pcntl files in the php make. Do I need another
flag/library to include pcntl?
Thanks
At 17:51 13/09/2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:28:47 +0100, Zeev Suraski wrote:
The fact that PHP is not C# or Java doesn't mean we shouldn't look for
useful features in those languages,
Right.
so it's not an argument.
I think it is very much an argument - the fact a fea
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:59:13 +0100, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 17:51 13/09/2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:28:47 +0100, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 16:39 13/09/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
You are not serioulsy suggesting to use phpdoc for runtime annotation
support? Are you?
I actu
At 17:51 13/09/2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:28:47 +0100, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 16:39 13/09/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
You are not serioulsy suggesting to use phpdoc for runtime annotation
support? Are you?
I actually am (either that or get what you want done in some othe
At 17:47 13/09/2010, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
This only applies to the weird suggestions of % or ! for the operator and
new syntax constructs for arrays and such. Are there any objections to
implementing them to actually look like PHP code?
Yep. It's a whole new branch of syntax even w/o the we
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:28:47 +0100, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 16:39 13/09/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
You are not serioulsy suggesting to use phpdoc for runtime annotation
support? Are you?
I actually am (either that or get what you want done in some other
way). It's a rare enough use case that
Hi Benjamin,
I agree with you 100 percent.
Greetings,
Christian
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:38:37 +0200, Benjamin Eberlei
wrote:
> I strongly disagree!
>
> PHPDocs are for what their name suggests, for comments, not for runtime
> code information. They allow arbitrary characters, their intent is fo
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:28:47 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 16:39 13/09/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>You are not serioulsy suggesting to use phpdoc for runtime annotation
>>support? Are you?
>
> I actually am (either that or get what you want done in some other
> way). It's a rare enough
Benjamin,
Strictly speaking annotations are not *needed*. They simply aren't -
you can do anything and everything you might want to do without
them. You can argue that the value they bring is very important, and
that it outweighs the complexity they bring upon to the language - in
which cas
I strongly disagree!
PHPDocs are for what their name suggests, for comments, not for runtime
code information. They allow arbitrary characters, their intent is for
human-readible documentation only.
Yet they are used for service description (Zend_Soap_Autodiscover,
Zend_XmlRpc), metadata
At 16:39 13/09/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
You are not serioulsy suggesting to use phpdoc for runtime annotation
support? Are you?
I actually am (either that or get what you want done in some other
way). It's a rare enough use case that I think it's a very
reasonable compromise. The disadvanta
On 9/13/10 5:24 AM, FGM at GMail wrote:
> Having to do some work in Python recently, I had to dig into WSGI and found
> that its model, much similar to what JSGI, PSGI, Rack do, seemed likely to
> bring a potentially high performance improvement on my usual (Drupal)
> environment. This also happene
hi,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I'm not sure we've seen a good reason to add annotations instead of using
> PHPDoc. Sure, PHPDoc isn't a perfect fit for certain purposes, but I think
> it certainly falls in the good-enough fit for most purposes. It's also both
> mach
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:24 PM, FGM at GMail wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Having to do some work in Python recently, I had to dig into WSGI and found
> that its model, much similar to what JSGI, PSGI, Rack do, seemed likely to
> bring a potentially high performance improvement on my usual (Drupal)
> env
On 09/13/2010 09:05 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I for one don't see the huge gain annotations bring on top of PHPDoc.
Same here, I am satisfied with the way that annotations work, for
instance, in PHPUnit.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebast
At 20:24 11/09/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> The separator never was a problem... but I definately don't want to
>> see another 6 months just to define what would the separator be.
>> If we need to drop [] in favor of array support, I v
Support WSGI SAPI, WSGI more simple.
-邮件原件-
发件人: FGM at GMail [mailto:fgmar...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2010年9月13日 20:25
收件人: internals@lists.php.net
主题: [PHP-DEV] WSGI-like SAPI for PHP ?
Hello,
Having to do some work in Python recently, I had to dig into WSGI and found
that its model, much si
Hello,
Having to do some work in Python recently, I had to dig into WSGI and found
that its model, much similar to what JSGI, PSGI, Rack do, seemed likely to
bring a potentially high performance improvement on my usual (Drupal)
environment. This also happened to match a remark done by Rasmus durin
Hi,
The attached patch modifies internal ZE data structures.
It gives 4% less heap memory usage on waiting PHP process (2210KB
instead of 2304KB) and up to 7% improvement on applications with many
classes (ZendFramework benchmark uses 17.7M instead of 19M). It also
makes small speedup on some
Hi All,
There seems to be a lot of discussion as to syntax for annotations at
the moment. Firstly I'd like to say that I've never delved into PHP
internals so may not understand some of the reasons why some of my
suggestions may not work, so please don't give me a hard time about it!
I also
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:55:16 -0700, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> 1. In Java annotations are a special type of an interface. But due the
>> lack of type hinting for scalar values we cannot use this construct,
>> because we cannot put some validation logic in an interface. My proposal
>
> I'm n
37 matches
Mail list logo
