Hello Andi,
Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 1:35:17 AM, you wrote:
> At 09:18 AM 11/20/2004 -0500, Wez Furlong wrote:
>>Is this the commit that prompted Rob to adjust the COM extension today?
>>
>>If so, we've broken binary compat within the 5.0.x series by changing
>>the method signature; somebody n
At 17:40 20/11/2004, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Wez,
unfortunatley this fix is needed to make __call() being executable in C.
Yes, but the question is whether it's important enough to break binary
compatibility because of that. Being able to use __call() in C can
definitely be considered a new
Hi !
I'm writing my own sapi module and I'd like register 2 additional
modules calling php_module_startup.
I've noticed that it is imposible because
int php_module_startup(sapi_module_struct *sf, zend_module_entry
*additional_modules, uint num_additional_modules)
is calling
php_startup_extensio
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 11:02, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 17:40 20/11/2004, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> >Hello Wez,
> >
> > unfortunatley this fix is needed to make __call() being executable in C.
>
> Yes, but the question is whether it's important enough to break binary
> compatibility because of t
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> I have to agree with this. The concept of PECL windows binaries depends on the
> fact that PHP extensions are binary compatible among patchlevel versions. I
> guess authors of propriatory PHP extensions would face the same problem.
>
> If we absolutely
win32: copy the code from proc_open(), just leave the pipes stuff out.
By detached I mean - start and leave running.
for most unixes:
pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
close(0);
close(1);
close(2);
// mask out SIGHUP signal - unfortunately I don't remember the
calls for unixes
e
Wez Furlong wrote:
> it's on my very long TODO list.
>
> --Wez.
No rush. If I was 50% less lazy I might cvs co it and look at it for a
few minutes, and say "aw hell, I'll just wait for Wez and Ilia," but I'm
too lazy to do even that, so ... I'll just wait for Wez and Ilia. =)
Jed
--
_
Sounds like a good idea. Can you put a patch together which we can review?
Andi
At 01:04 PM 11/23/2004 +0100, Wojtek Meler wrote:
Hi !
I'm writing my own sapi module and I'd like register 2 additional modules
calling php_module_startup.
I've noticed that it is imposible because
int php_module_sta
At 05:02 PM 11/23/2004 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> I have to agree with this. The concept of PECL windows binaries depends
on the
> fact that PHP extensions are binary compatible among patchlevel versions. I
> guess authors of propriatory PHP extensio
At 18:02 23/11/2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> I have to agree with this. The concept of PECL windows binaries depends
on the
> fact that PHP extensions are binary compatible among patchlevel versions. I
> guess authors of propriatory PHP extensions would
Which option? changing php_module_startup interface to
int php_module_startup(sapi_module_struct *sf, zend_module_entry
*additional_modules, uint num_additional_modules)
or rather
adding those 2 lines to php_module_startup body ?
Shall I attach patch to a message or put it somewhere in the web ?
11 matches
Mail list logo
