On Sun, September 6, 2009 2:15 pm, Keisial wrote:
> A compromise might be skipping shebang line only when it's followed by
> http://cdbaby.com/search/from/lynch
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Fri, September 4, 2009 10:51 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Shebang is for command line scripts (php-cli). It does not make sense
> to
> support it for Web server scripts. It just adds unnecessary
> code/complexity to that code base. Removing the support from php-cgi
> was
> really a remnant of the o
> Hi,
> Can this snippet of shebang checking be removed for php 5.3.+, 6?
> Its for external FPM project.
>
> cgi_main.c:
> php_fopen_primary_script(&file_handle TSRMLS_CC);
>
> if (CGIG(check_shebang_line) && file_handle.handle.fp &&
> (file_handle.handle.fp != stdin)) {
> /* #!php support */
> c
Hi,
Can this snippet of shebang checking be removed for php 5.3.+, 6?
Its for external FPM project.
cgi_main.c:
php_fopen_primary_script(&file_handle TSRMLS_CC);
if (CGIG(check_shebang_line) && file_handle.handle.fp &&
(file_handle.handle.fp != stdin)) {
From: "Richard Quadling"
Newsgroups: php.internals
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] shebang skipping in 5.3.0
2009/9/7 jvlad :
> And for windows, the shebang line is not used. So becomes part of the
> output - no matter what SAPI is used.
>
&
> If this is indeed a use-case for CGI then I think it's a valid argument
> and we are probably better off supporting it. I did not remember shebang
> works for real CGI.
> There are still plenty of use-cases for running CGI (as opposed to
> FastCGI) in the industry.
> Question now is whether this
Hi,
For the record here, as far as I can see, the bugs have been fixed by
Jani. Please go testing and report any reminding issues :)
Cheers,
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Keisial wrote:
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> If this is indeed a use-case for CGI then I think it's a valid argument
>> and we a
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> If this is indeed a use-case for CGI then I think it's a valid argument
> and we are probably better off supporting it. I did not remember shebang
> works for real CGI.
> There are still plenty of use-cases for running CGI (as opposed to
> FastCGI) in the industry.
> Question
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Boutell [mailto:t...@punkave.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 6:30 AM
> To: Marco Tabini
> Cc: Pierre Joye; jani.taski...@iki.fi; Andi Gutmans; Joey Smith;
> internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] shebang skipp
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> It's quite relevant. It's actually one of the most important things I tried
> to explain Pierre already. And yes, people still use CGI these days. Not all
> of them have their own webservers running they can configure however they
> wish.
Wel
Marco Tabini wrote:
It would be really nice if everyone could consider that the other do
understand what is being discussed but actually disagree. The question
was actually: is it worth the effort? Who is seriously using CGI (not
meaning fastcgi) with php these days?
On shared hosts, CGI is oft
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
You obviously don't understand at all what this is used for.
Consider the case where you can't change webserver's configs.
Or that you want to quickly test different PHP versions.
What would be easier than simply switching t
Pardon, I do realize everyone remembers CGI, but sometimes it's
important to review the basics, especially when optimized variants are
more popular than the original (but have by no means eliminated it).
Classic CGI has its advantages. It's simple to implement and memory
leaks in individual instan
It would be really nice if everyone could consider that the other do
understand what is being discussed but actually disagree. The question
was actually: is it worth the effort? Who is seriously using CGI (not
meaning fastcgi) with php these days?
On shared hosts, CGI is often the only way to ha
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Surprisingly, the CGI programming book I wrote in 1995 is relevant to
> this conversation. (:
>
> We're forgetting our history here.
It would be really nice if everyone could consider that the other do
understand what is being discussed but actu
te:
>>>>
>>>> Shebang is for command line scripts (php-cli). It does not make sense to
>>>> support it for Web server scripts. It just adds unnecessary
>>>> code/complexity to that code base. Removing the support from php-cgi was
>>>> reall
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> You obviously don't understand at all what this is used for.
> Consider the case where you can't change webserver's configs.
> Or that you want to quickly test different PHP versions.
> What would be easier than simply switching the version in
04, 2009 1:35 AM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] shebang skipping in 5.3.0
I definitely had the wrong changeset - sorry, Nuno. :) Looks
like maybe 273177 is the problem child.
http://tinyurl.com/lewcft
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:25:52AM +0100, Scott MacVicar wrote:
On 4 Sep 2009, at
>>> From: Joey Smith [mailto:j...@joeysmith.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:35 AM
>>> To: internals@lists.php.net
>>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] shebang skipping in 5.3.0
>>>
>>> I definitely had the wrong changeset - sorry, Nuno. :) Looks
>>
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Shebang is for command line scripts (php-cli). It does not make sense to
> support it for Web server scripts. It just adds unnecessary
> code/complexity to that code base. Removing the support from php-cgi was
> really a remnant of the old days when cli and cgi were the same S
Andi
-Original Message-
From: Joey Smith [mailto:j...@joeysmith.com]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:35 AM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] shebang skipping in 5.3.0
I definitely had the wrong changeset - sorry, Nuno. :) Looks
like maybe 273177 is the problem child.
http://tinyur
>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:35 AM
>> To: internals@lists.php.net
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] shebang skipping in 5.3.0
>>
>> I definitely had the wrong changeset - sorry, Nuno. :) Looks
>> like maybe 273177 is the problem child.
>>
>> http://
off this way.
Andi
> -Original Message-
> From: Joey Smith [mailto:j...@joeysmith.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:35 AM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] shebang skipping in 5.3.0
>
> I definitely had the wrong changeset - sorry, Nuno.
I definitely had the wrong changeset - sorry, Nuno. :) Looks
like maybe 273177 is the problem child.
http://tinyurl.com/lewcft
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:25:52AM +0100, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2009, at 09:16, Joey Smith wrote:
>
>> I can understand not having the 'shebang skipping'
See #49182
Cheers,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
> What's the problem your having? The skip code is still there just in a
> different bit.
>
> Scott
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
On 4 Sep 2009, at 09:16, Joey Smith wrote:
I can understand not having the 'shebang skipping' code
in both the SAPI *and* the scanner, but we probably
need to have it in at least ONE of them. :)
Per his email[1] almost a year ago, Dmitry removed the
shebang line check from sapi/cgi/cgi_main.
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 02:16:40AM -0600, Joey Smith wrote:
> Per his email[1] almost a year ago, Dmitry removed the
[1] should have been: http://tinyurl.com/kwne3v
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
27 matches
Mail list logo
