On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm wrong when comparing with other languages and mainly with
>> ASP.NET(C#) since they've used it for web proposes but I did saw many
>>
>> classes that used this feature and personally really like it.
>>
>
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> For my vote: I think keeping this in pecl is fine, because they're all
> things which can be done from the extension space.
+1
> Yes, I've
> abandoned the package, but nothing is stopping someone else from
> taking it over.
It seems it has a
Andrew Faulds wrote:
Lester, you complain about practically everything being complicated/breaking
compatibility/not working with PHP 5.2. Why complain here? It doesn't help the
signal:noise ratio to moan about something which has no direct effect on you.
When there is no negative responses it i
Lester, you complain about practically everything being complicated/breaking
compatibility/not working with PHP 5.2. Why complain here? It doesn't help the
signal:noise ratio to moan about something which has no direct effect on you.
--
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Les
Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong when comparing with other languages and mainly with
ASP.NET(C#) since they've used it for web proposes but I did saw many
classes that used this feature and personally really like it.
If ASP is so good why is it loosing market share?
Personally I'm pulling
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Sherif Ramadan wrote:
> >
> > I don't see why this is not a good programming practice, lets get the
> > following example:
> > class Member {
> > public static function create(...) { }
> > public function update(...) { }
> > public function remove(...) {
On Aug 2, 2012, at 17:16, Ángel González wrote:
> On 03/08/12 01:22, Sara Golemon wrote:
>> In all seriousness, I'd love to hear how you'd do Sandboxing without
>> using the tsrm context hack I used in runkit. That approach had
>> nothing to do with being in PECL, it had to do with that being th
> For my vote: I think keeping this in pecl is fine, because they're all
> things which can be done from the extension space.
If my vote still counts (I was somehow involved in the creation of runkit at
one point (-: ), I say the same: extension is fine. Don't monkeypatch
production.
S
>
> I don't see why this is not a good programming practice, lets get the
> following example:
> class Member {
> public static function create(...) { }
> public function update(...) { }
> public function remove(...) { }
> // ...
> }
>
> now you wish to add, for example, a ban funct
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Yahav,
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
>
>> I do think that some of the runkit features should not be included in PHP
>> core but I wish to focus on extending classes with extension methods,
>> constants, trait
On 03/08/12 01:22, Sara Golemon wrote:
> In all seriousness, I'd love to hear how you'd do Sandboxing without
> using the tsrm context hack I used in runkit. That approach had
> nothing to do with being in PECL, it had to do with that being the
> only mechanism available to swap globals in and out
Yahav,
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
> I do think that some of the runkit features should not be included in PHP
> core but I wish to focus on extending classes with extension methods,
> constants, traits and members.
>
> Just like all other complicated and powerful fea
I do think that some of the runkit features should not be included in PHP
core but I wish to focus on extending classes with extension methods,
constants, traits and members.
Just like all other complicated and powerful features in PHP, one should
use them with a good reason and when he/she knows
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Leigh wrote:
>> Sandboxing: Complicated by the fact that it only works in a threaded
>> build, can't transfer all types (e.g. resource, complex objects), and
>> can't run concurrently. Until/unless these problems can be
>> meaningfully solved, I wouldn't consider i
> Sandboxing: Complicated by the fact that it only works in a threaded
> build, can't transfer all types (e.g. resource, complex objects), and
> can't run concurrently. Until/unless these problems can be
> meaningfully solved, I wouldn't consider it a functional
> implementation.
To me the "threa
"For all those things you probably shouldn't have been doing anyway"
That description is on the package because you... probably shouldn't
be doing these things.
Further, any discussion of runkit should focus on individual features of it.
Custom Superglobals: I consider these fairly harmle
This is a great idea (the runkit, not the rootkit).
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> I think I need to get my lens prescription updated. I thought the subject
> line read, "Add *rootkit *to PHP Runtime" and was already sharpening my
> pitchfor
>
> What do you think?
>
I think I need to get my lens prescription updated. I thought the subject
line read, "Add *rootkit *to PHP Runtime" and was already sharpening my
pitchfork before I realized my error.
For the record, I am firmly opposed to adding a rootkit to the PHP runtime.
A runkit s
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Leigh wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012 5:44 PM, "Yahav Gindi Bar" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't know how to tag this kind of discussion (because it's not RFC
> > request).
> > I've interested in runkit PECL extension and think that it should be part
> > of the PHP c
On Aug 2, 2012 5:44 PM, "Yahav Gindi Bar" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't know how to tag this kind of discussion (because it's not RFC
> request).
> I've interested in runkit PECL extension and think that it should be part
> of the PHP core runtime.
>
> I do think that the implementation should be dif
Hi,
I don't know how to tag this kind of discussion (because it's not RFC
request).
I've interested in runkit PECL extension and think that it should be part
of the PHP core runtime.
I do think that the implementation should be different and don't mind to
suggest my implementation as RFC, but fir
21 matches
Mail list logo
