On 01/08/2015 01:06, Rowan Collins wrote:
On 1 August 2015 00:36:58 BST, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
DEBUG_BACKTRACE_IGNORE_ARGS in a debug_backtrace() call. IIRC the
object of called methods is already excluded (equivalent to masking
out DEBUG_PROVIDE_OBJECT) so what's left is all strings.
I'm
Hi!
week or two and I serialize exceptions (excluding stack trace arguments)
to send them back to the calling process to aid in debugging process
failures.
But then you don't need to serialize Exception. You need to send the
text representation of Exception, for humans to look at, not the live
On 1 August 2015 00:36:58 BST, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> As I have pointed out several times, it is only the 'args' section of
>> the backtrace that ever contains unserializable items. The solution
>
>previous could too. In fact, right now, since you can unserialize
>exceptions, previous
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > this is where my point about we allow serializing resources just fine
> > was aimed at.
>
> It's not "just fine". It's "it was there before we got smarter so now we
> can't change it without breaking too many things". But I thi
Hi!
> As I have pointed out several times, it is only the 'args' section of
> the backtrace that ever contains unserializable items. The solution
previous could too. In fact, right now, since you can unserialize
exceptions, previous can contain literally anything and so can any other
members. Als
Hi!
> this is where my point about we allow serializing resources just fine
> was aimed at.
It's not "just fine". It's "it was there before we got smarter so now we
can't change it without breaking too many things". But I think we did
get smarter and no longer see silently putting whatever string
Hi!
> week or two and I serialize exceptions (excluding stack trace arguments)
> to send them back to the calling process to aid in debugging process
> failures.
But then you don't need to serialize Exception. You need to send the
text representation of Exception, for humans to look at, not the l
On 31 July 2015 20:56:30 BST, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> Personally I feel the restoring them impossible argument weak,
>consider
>> that we allow stuff like serializing resources without even a notice.
>
>Not sure what you mean by that. If you try to serialize resource, you
>just get an
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Personally I feel the restoring them impossible argument weak, consider
> > that we allow stuff like serializing resources without even a notice.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. If you try to serialize resource, you
> just
Hi Stas,
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:51 PM
> To: Marco Pivetta ; Rowan Collins
>
> Cc: Nikita Popov ; PHP Internals List
>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Serializing exceptions
>
On 07/27/2015 02:08 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Looking into some issue, I've discovered that, to my surprise,
Exceptions are serializable. Except that it doesn't always work of
course (e.g. see http://stackoverflow.com/q/9747813/214196) because
exceptions contain backtraces, and those can con
On 07/28/2015 03:46 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
This sort of change would be a major BC break for 8.x or similar.
How is it a major BC break? You make it sound like serializing
exceptions is something no application can do without. I have yet to see
a single case where it's useful (yes,
Hi!
> Personally I feel the restoring them impossible argument weak, consider
> that we allow stuff like serializing resources without even a notice.
Not sure what you mean by that. If you try to serialize resource, you
just get an integer. Not ideal, as a remanant of the times in PHP where
the a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > -1 on this. If there is no technical problem with serializing the
> > Exception class itself, it should be possible to serialize it. It can
> > always happen that an object contains some not-serializable member, this
> > is no
Hi!
> New BC breaks in Beta?
Why not? What's the problem with it? Beta is to identify issues with
current code, serialized exceptions is an issue (as in, they don't work
and lead to security problems and generally pointless). Dragging this
known problem around for years makes no sense.
--
Stas
New BC breaks in Beta? Meh.
On Jul 28, 2015 22:44, "Rowan Collins" wrote:
> On 28 July 2015 21:34:06 BST, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> >This sort of change would be a major BC break for 8.x or similar.
>
> I think that was the point of trying to squeeze it into 7.0
>
>
Hi!
> This sort of change would be a major BC break for 8.x or similar.
How is it a major BC break? You make it sound like serializing
exceptions is something no application can do without. I have yet to see
a single case where it's useful (yes, I've read the Symphony comment but
I'm not sure wh
On 28 July 2015 21:34:06 BST, Marco Pivetta wrote:
>This sort of change would be a major BC break for 8.x or similar.
I think that was the point of trying to squeeze it into 7.0
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
This sort of change would be a major BC break for 8.x or similar. I also
don't see security implications, tbh.
On Jul 28, 2015 18:41, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > -1 on this. If there is no technical problem with serializing the
> > Exception class itself, it should be possible to seri
Hi!
> -1 on this. If there is no technical problem with serializing the
> Exception class itself, it should be possible to serialize it. It can
> always happen that an object contains some not-serializable member, this
> is nothing specific to exceptions. I don't see the point of this change.
The
Nikita Popov wrote on 28/07/2015 14:07:
-1 on this. If there is no technical problem with serializing the Exception
class itself, it should be possible to serialize it. It can always happen
that an object contains some not-serializable member, this is nothing
specific to exceptions. I don't see t
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Looking into some issue, I've discovered that, to my surprise,
> > Exceptions are serializable. Except that it doesn't always work of
> > course (e.g. see http://stackoverflow.com/q/9747813/214196) because
> > exceptions contain back
Stas Malyshev wrote on 27/07/2015 08:08:
Since discussion on this did not lead to a definite conclusion, but I did
not hear from anybody that they need serialized exceptions, and we keep
getting bug reports about exception serialization and various issues
triggered by it, I propose this change:
h
Hi!
Looking into some issue, I've discovered that, to my surprise,
> Exceptions are serializable. Except that it doesn't always work of
> course (e.g. see http://stackoverflow.com/q/9747813/214196) because
> exceptions contain backtraces, and those can contain non-serializable
> objects. So in rea
24 matches
Mail list logo
