hi,
Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0 release time), it
is still used and works for users with custom versions. A new version
may come as well, as part of one of some features I'm working on.
2011/4/23 Johannes Schlüter :
> Hi,
>
> we have q
On 4/24/11 4:41 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0 release time), it
is still used and works for users with custom versions. A new version
may come as well, as part of one of some features I'm working on.
Your ar
2011/4/24 Rasmus Lerdorf :
> On 4/24/11 4:41 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
>>
>> ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0 release time), it
>> is still used and works for users with custom versions. A new version
>> may come as well, as part
reeze wrote:
> Hi,
> I am not sure it's the right place to discuss this. someday I found I call a
> static method _instancely_.
> the method is just a helper method when reviewing my code. I know I do the
> wrong thing, but PHP doesn't
> complain about it. then I do some tests like below:
A few
Hi,
On Apr 24 22:13:47, Ángel González wrote:
> reeze wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am not sure it's the right place to discuss this. someday I found I call
> > a static method _instancely_.
> > the method is just a helper method when reviewing my code. I know I do the
> > wrong thing, but PHP doesn't
>
