On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:29:09 +0100, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> What is the status of this ?
Looks like it's already been committed.
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Sorry to insist, but taking the same argument in the thread for
REQUEST_TIME :
- x.y.z to x.y+1.z
> - (...)
> - Backward compatibility must be kept
>
> ( https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess )
>
What is the status of this ?
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 21:38, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
Hi!
Note that despite I wrote the patch, I'm -1 on it, as stated in the
previous message in this thread.
So what you prefer to do instead? I'd like to have ob_gzhandler(), but
if you think it can be done better way, please advise.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://ww
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:07:00 -0800, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60326
>
> Ah, I didn't realize this is patch from Mike. Let me take another look
> into it but I think it can be applied unless anyone sees anything wrong
> with it.
Note that despite I wrote the patch, I'
Hi!
I don't want anyone to take it personal... But what is the status about
missing ob_gzhandler function (but also ob_tidyhandler and
ob_iconv_handler) ?
I put mike's patch and a comment to help track the BC break /potential
inconsistency :
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60326
Ah, I didn't
Hi,
I don't want anyone to take it personal... But what is the status about
missing ob_gzhandler function (but also ob_tidyhandler and
ob_iconv_handler) ?
I put mike's patch and a comment to help track the BC break /potential
inconsistency :
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60326
Regards
Nicolas
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:46:05 +0100, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Without a real ob_gzhandler function, replacing it with an alias as
> currently in RC1 : what if someone then creates an ob_gzhandler function
> in userland ? would ob_start('ob_gzhandler') use the userland function
> or still the alias ?
Without a real ob_gzhandler function, replacing it with an alias as
currently in RC1 : what if someone then creates an ob_gzhandler function in
userland ? would ob_start('ob_gzhandler') use the userland function or
still the alias ? I think this is a second argument to make ob_gzhandler a
real func
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:59:04 -0800, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Well, apparently they did for some reason, doing custom output handlers
> based on it I guess. So the question is - is it possible to still have
> this function implemented?
I'll try to hack up a replacement. It would definitely help if
Hi!
What did people use ob_gzhandler for directly?
Well, apparently they did for some reason, doing custom output handlers
based on it I guess. So the question is - is it possible to still have
this function implemented?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcr
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:16:52 -0800, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> On 11/13/11 7:11 AM, Laruence wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
>> http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
>
> Indeed, I do not see ob_gzhandler in the function list, but no mention
> of that in
>
> Indeed, I do not see ob_gzhandler in the function list
>
Personally, I do use ob_gzhandler as a function, so are some some other
projects :
http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=lang:php "ob_gzhandler("
if the function could be reintroduced that would be cool...
Nicolas
On 11/13/11 7:11 AM, Laruence wrote:
Hi:
this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
Indeed, I do not see ob_gzhandler in the function list, but no mention
of that in UPGRADING or other docs. As far as I understand, it was
converted from
Hi:
string(10) "readgzfile"
[1]=>
string(8) "gzrewind"
[2]=>
string(7) "gzclose"
[3]=>
string(5) "gzeof"
[4]=>
string(6) "gzgetc"
[5]=>
string(6) "gzgets"
[6]=>
string(7) "gzgetss"
[7]=>
string(6) "gzread"
[8]=>
string(6) "gzopen"
[9]=>
string(10) "gzpassthru"
Hi:
my mistake in the word usage, I mean ob_gzhandler missd,,
not ob_*,,
sorry
thanks
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Laruence:
>> Hi:
>>
>> this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
>> http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&re
Am 13.11.2011 16:47, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
> as you can see, there is 2 functions gone in 5.4/trunk:
> string(12) "ob_gzhandler"
> string(16) "ob_iconv_handler"
thank your for confirming that
i only liked to get sure what happens early enough
the two missing are not soo bad but AFAIK a
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Laruence:
> > Hi:
> >
> > this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
> > http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
> >
> > is this intentional? if yes, I think this will become a doc problem
>
>
All the ob_* tests are still in 5.4 and they all pass, so no, these
functions have not been removed.
On 11/13/2011 07:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Laruence:
>> Hi:
>>
>> this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
>> http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revis
Am 13.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Laruence:
> Hi:
>
> this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
> http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
>
> is this intentional? if yes, I think this will become a doc problem
i think / hope this is an accident
if the ob_functions(9 are replaced i
Hi:
this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
is this intentional? if yes, I think this will become a doc problem.
thanks
--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsub
20 matches
Mail list logo
