Denis,
I've cleaned up the patch, fixing whitespace, a few memory leaks and
optimized the copy from array code. The code for the copy to/from array/file
was just committed.
I am still reviewing the inTransaction code, since that is something I think
can probably be generic and not database specif
I've added the transaction code as a generic method inTransaction(), by
default it'll just use in_txn internal parameter, but allows the driver to
extend this (as was done in PostgreSQL) and provide a detailed status code.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Denis Gasparin
wrote:
>
> I attached to t
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> That's exactly what I had in mind. Have E_TYPE off by default and
> implement it throughout PHP - instead of just type hints.
>
>> for example:
>> $foo = 0;
>> $foo += (int)'123abc'; // no error
>> $foo += '123abc'; // E_TYPE
Out of curiosity: What would you do with the E_T
At 15:12 10/06/2010, Christian Schneider wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> That's exactly what I had in mind. Have E_TYPE off by default and
> implement it throughout PHP - instead of just type hints.
>
>> for example:
>> $foo = 0;
>> $foo += (int)'123abc'; // no error
>> $foo += '123abc'; // E_TYPE
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
> Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > That's exactly what I had in mind. Have E_TYPE off by default and
> > implement it throughout PHP - instead of just type hints.
> >
> >> for example:
> >> $foo = 0;
> >> $foo += (int)'123abc'; // no error
> >> $
Has anybody thought about adding Gearman support to the fpm sapi?
Managing Gearman workers is pretty much identical to managing fastcgi
workers, so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/un
Rasmus,
I can work on it if no one has it already.
Warm Regards,
Patrick
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Has anybody thought about adding Gearman support to the fpm sapi?
> Managing Gearman workers is pretty much identical to managing fastcgi
> workers, so it doesn't se
The big difference is that different processes do different jobs in
Gearman. All PHP workers in fpm just run what ever code is handed to
them. How do you handle that?
Brian.
http://brian.moonspot.net/
On 6/10/10 9:56 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Has anybody thought about adding Gearman
On 06/10/2010 17:20, Brian Moon wrote:
The big difference is that different processes do different jobs in
Gearman. All PHP workers in fpm just run what ever code is handed to
them. How do you handle that?
Threading ;) ?
On 6/10/10 9:56 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Has anybody thought about addi
On 6/10/10 8:30 AM, Frederic Hardy wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 17:20, Brian Moon wrote:
>> The big difference is that different processes do different jobs in
>> Gearman. All PHP workers in fpm just run what ever code is handed to
>> them. How do you handle that?
> Threading ;) ?
Definitely not. Gearm
All "fpm" workers would be called using the same function name (e.g.
"runphp"). This allows you to reuse a gearmand instance for other
workers too.
The advantages of fpm vs gearman would be mostly performance (it uses
ping and requires an underlying layer on top of tcp/ip), followed by
dynamic spa
On 6/10/10 8:53 AM, Tjerk Anne Meesters wrote:
> All "fpm" workers would be called using the same function name (e.g.
> "runphp"). This allows you to reuse a gearmand instance for other
> workers too.
I don't think we would need to require that. Obviously you could build
your Gearman worker such
[gearman]
worker1.path = /path/to/worker1.php
worker1.pm = dynamic
worker1.pm.max_children = 10
worker1.pm.start_servers = 5
worker2.path = /path/to/worker2.php
worker2.pm = dynamic
worker2.pm.max_children = 4
worker2.pm.start_servers = 2
So, this is a proposed new entry in the ini format? I am
On 6/10/10 9:31 AM, Brian Moon wrote:
>> [gearman]
>> worker1.path = /path/to/worker1.php
>> worker1.pm = dynamic
>> worker1.pm.max_children = 10
>> worker1.pm.start_servers = 5
>>
>> worker2.path = /path/to/worker2.php
>> worker2.pm = dynamic
>> worker2.pm.max_children = 4
>> worker2.pm.start_serv
On 10.06.2010, at 23:41, Pieter de Zwart wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Another n00b question: What is the proper way to return from a function
> after throwing an exception? My code looks like:
>
> zend_throw_exception(amqp_connection_exception_class_entry, "blah blah
> blah", 0 TSRMLS_CC);
> return;
Hey guys,
Another n00b question: What is the proper way to return from a function
after throwing an exception? My code looks like:
zend_throw_exception(amqp_connection_exception_class_entry, "blah blah
blah", 0 TSRMLS_CC);
return;
Should I instead RETURN_FALSE from there?
Thanks,
Pieter
--
16 matches
Mail list logo
