hi!
I like the idea to improve this area. However I'm with Stas here. I do
not feel comfortable enough with this RFC to agree to get into 5.4 at
this stage. It is a sensible area and we are already late (because of
the tests) with the 5.4 release plan.
Next will begin in spring next year, not too
Hi!
On 9/12/11 3:45 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
It's a change in behavior so it makes sense. Those operations are wrapper
operations and by their nature they are static operations, meaning a
stream instance is not required. See the difference between php_stream_ops
and php_stream_wrapper_ops. It wo
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:00:13 +0100, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 16:56, Gustavo Lopes
wrote:
Ah, right. stat() and unlink() should have been static in the first
place.
Given the circumstances, it might be a good idea, to document url_stat,
unlink, rename, mkdir and rmdi
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 16:56, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> Em Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:40:20 +0100, Christian Kaps
> escreveu:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:43:33 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
>>>
>>> Em Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:53:13 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann
>>> escreveu:
>>>
Regarding state it is importa
Em Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:40:20 +0100, Christian Kaps
escreveu:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:43:33 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
Em Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:53:13 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann
escreveu:
Regarding state it is important to notice that PHP does *not* execute
the constructor on all low level
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:43:33 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
Em Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:53:13 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann
escreveu:
Regarding state it is important to notice that PHP does *not*
execute
the constructor on all low level calls when instantiating the
wrapper
class - for whatever reason
Em Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:53:13 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann
escreveu:
Regarding state it is important to notice that PHP does *not* execute
the constructor on all low level calls when instantiating the wrapper
class - for whatever reason that is the case. Changing that behaviour
would cause qu
Am 12.09.2011 00:26, schrieb Gustavo Lopes:
> A patch against trunk (or 5.4) would have been nicer. Other than that:
> * This patch has a huge BC:
Johannes already said that he is updating his patch. It is not our
intention to break BC, we only want to add additional/optional
behaviour.
> Coul
Hi,
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 23:26 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:26:20 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann
> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > --
> > [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streamwrapper-factory
> > [2] http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/stream_factory.diff
> >
>
> A patch against tr
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:26:20 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann
wrote:
[...]
--
[1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streamwrapper-factory
[2] http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/stream_factory.diff
A patch against trunk (or 5.4) would have been nicer. Other than that:
* This patch has a huge BC:
PHP
Hi,
Am 11.09.2011 23:40, schrieb Anthony Ferrara:
So, based on the rfc, does "must return an instance" mean that it can't
throw an exception (ex: if a resource couldn't be opened)?
A resource is opened on `streamWrapper::dir_opendir()` or
`streamWrapper::stream_open()` anyway, but not on Wrap
So, based on the rfc, does "must return an instance" mean that it can't
throw an exception (ex: if a resource couldn't be opened)?
On Sep 11, 2011 3:26 PM, "Sebastian Bergmann" wrote:
> We (Arne Blankerts, Stefan Priebsch, Benjamin Eberlei, and I) have
> worked on/with code where a factory for str
12 matches
Mail list logo
