On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/5/07, Jan Reininghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am currently working on my second draw for the page, but I have a
> question. For my first draw I assumed that all of the new features will
> be available for all three branches, but is
On 5/6/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/5/07, Jan Reininghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am currently working on my second draw for the page, but I have a
> > question. For my first draw I assumed that all of the new featur
On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/6/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/5/07, Jan Reininghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am currently working on my second draw for the page, but I have a
> > > que
Tijnema ! wrote:
On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/6/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/5/07, Jan Reininghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am currently working on my second draw for the page, but
On 5/6/07, M.Sokolewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5/6/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > On 5/5/07, Jan Reininghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
On 5/6/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/6/07, M.Sokolewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tijnema ! wrote:
> > On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 5/6/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On 5/6/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
David Coallier wrote:
Yes we have discussed that on IRC with edin and the whole idea was
USING tabs. So here I'll state exactly the idea as it seems to
misunderstood:
The idea is clearly and simply to use tabs for the different branches.
Using javascript was just simple and fast in this case and
IMHO one good reason to start a new branch for 5.x would be the
ability to get rid off register_globals and magic_quotes in the 5
series without having to wait for PHP6 to come around.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsu
It sounds like you have register_globals off, which is a good thing imho.
You are trying $HTTP_RAW_POST_DATA but my recollection tells me it is
$_SERVER['HTTP_RAW_POST_DATA']. Does the latter work?
Anyway, reading from php://input is more correct and doesn't depend on
PHP settings as much, a
Hello "Unknown",
you are wrong, the name is right please learn your lessons before
writing to internals.
To the original problem: Ilia committed a fix a few hours ago which
should fix the problem. Feel free to test a current snapshot.
johannes
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 11:34 -0700, Unknown W. Brack
It could well be the last chance to get the mail() logger into 5.x as well,
and IMHO a lot of
people are waiting for this that can't/won't migrate to PHP6 quickly.
Best,
Mike Robinson
Ilia Alshanetsky writes:
> IMHO one good reason to start a new branch for 5.x would be
> the ability to get
On 05/06/2007 10:11 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
IMHO one good reason to start a new branch for 5.x would be the
ability to get rid off register_globals and magic_quotes in the 5
series without having to wait for PHP6 to come around.
That's exactly the reason I'm against creating 5_3 branch a
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
IMHO one good reason to start a new branch for 5.x would be the ability
to get rid off register_globals and magic_quotes in the 5 series without
having to wait for PHP6 to come around.
What would be the goal of that? Making it less painful to migrate to PHP
6.x since t
Wow. That's a curt reply. At the risk of being curt too... at least I
learned my lessons in manners?
Anyway, I did take a glance at the documentation but couldn't find
anything mentioning whether it really was a global. Sorry for my
mistaken assumption.
Seems like it should be properly do
I am working with the lead developers of PEAR/Structures_DataGrid on a new
package. Mark Wiesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: "please mention that you
need karma for peardoc/ and
pear/Structures_DataGrid_DataSource_SQLQuery/ .
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsub
Before reading the thread on the idea of a PHP 5.3 branch, I had never
heard of phar, so please excuse my neophyte questions, but I couldn't
find a reference with the information. On a single website application
environment (as opposed to a shared host type of thing), what are the
performance char
they most likely don't, it is designed for deployment and for running
includes directly.
What do you mean "directly"? Do you mean this is designed for running
application only specifically crafted to run inside phar and would break
some or most of the existing applications not designed specifi
Btw, I think if phar is a good way of deploying self-contained apps like
WAR and EAR then we should think of including this in the default
distro. It definitely has value. I just don't think we're quite there
yet.
WAR/EAR isn't really self-contained - they are managed by the app
server. So far
I see no value in making compatibility breaks in 5.x and not in the next
major version. As it is we drive a lot of our users crazy. We already
agreed this is a 6.x thing.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ilia Alshanetsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:12 AM
> To: M
Hi,
On 5/7/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pear install phar - or - pecl install phar - done
> oh wait the point is that pecl install doesn't work or is in 99% no option
And what is "pear install"? I don't have such command in my Windows by
default. Neither I have it on my
Sorry, I apologize. Although you were curt I should not have been so in
reply.
I used to manage development of a reasonably popular open source
project, and if one of our developers had ever said something like that,
it would have greatly annoyed me. You never really lose that.
Although I
A little note about executing a phar file, no phar extension is
required to execute a phar archive, neither to create it (see
Right, but php and PEAR are required to read/create/inspect the archive.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
--
PHP Int
Hi,
On 5/7/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A little note about executing a phar file, no phar extension is
> required to execute a phar archive, neither to create it (see
Right, but php and PEAR are required to read/create/inspect the archive.
Who has inspected pear.phar?
.php) or as a self contained installer. But I would not recommend to
ever use a phar for other purposes like in a production environment.
That's the question - if phar is not to be recommended in production as
deployment format, it belongs to PECL.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
24 matches
Mail list logo
