php-general-digest-helplists.php.net
Date: Thu Mar 13 2008 - 03:36:03 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

php-general Digest 13 Mar 2008 08:36:03 -0000 Issue 5345

Topics (messages 271435 through 271477):

Re: What's wrong the __autoload()?
        271435 by: Robert Cummings
        271436 by: Robert Cummings
        271440 by: Nathan Nobbe
        271442 by: Greg Donald
        271443 by: Greg Donald
        271444 by: Robert Cummings
        271445 by: Aschwin Wesselius
        271446 by: Robert Cummings
        271447 by: Robert Cummings
        271448 by: Greg Donald
        271449 by: Dave Goodchild
        271451 by: Andrés Robinet
        271452 by: Greg Donald
        271453 by: Greg Donald
        271455 by: Ray Hauge
        271456 by: Greg Donald
        271457 by: Ray Hauge
        271462 by: Robert Cummings
        271463 by: Colin Guthrie
        271465 by: Robert Cummings
        271468 by: Nathan Nobbe
        271473 by: Wolf

php://input
        271437 by: sinseven.aol.com

POST php://input
        271438 by: sinseven.aol.com

Re: Frameworks
        271439 by: Aschwin Wesselius
        271441 by: Andrés Robinet
        271450 by: Andrés Robinet
        271454 by: Aschwin Wesselius

Re: Question about user management...
        271458 by: tedd

Re: save image in database vs folder
        271459 by: tedd

Re: PHP CLI neat errors!
        271460 by: Chris

Re: mail function and headers
        271461 by: Chris
        271475 by: Alain Roger
        271476 by: Chris

Re: PHP & Ajax progress bar
        271464 by: Sn!per
        271474 by: Manuel Lemos

Why does the host make a difference?
        271466 by: Rick Pasotto
        271467 by: Chris

avoid calling php script
        271469 by: H u g o H i r a m
        271470 by: John Comerford
        271471 by: Steve Edberg
        271472 by: Wolf

php cron to check and remove files
        271477 by: Steven Macintyre

Administrivia:

To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
        php-general-digest-subscribelists.php.net

To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
        php-general-digest-unsubscribelists.php.net

To post to the list, e-mail:
        php-generallists.php.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------

attached mail follows:

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 14:59 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> > You make it sound like this stuff is new or something.
>
> Obviously to some it is. Just in this thread we had a person claim to
> only know PHP, C, and Java, none of which have any functional language
> capabilities built in.

Yes, but some of your diatribe was originally directed my way. And this
stuff certainly isn't new to me.

> > Lisp and other
> > functional languages have had it for decades. Even JavaScript has it.
>
> I'm sorry, I lost context, what missing PHP language feature are you
> referring to as "it"?

I'm sorry you lost context... try and stick with the program in the
future. It's not terribly difficult to follow a thread.

> > Your analogy is also way off... ask any person without legs if they
> > think about walking.
>
> Here, let me dumb-it-down a bit:

Awwww. you're so considerate... but really, there's no need, I'm sure I
can understand things well beyond your own capabilities.

> PHP doesn't have much in the way of meta-programming capabilities.
> Therefore one would not find it a natural thought to do much
> meta-programming in PHP, unless one already knew of a language where
> such support exists.

You're chasing your tail here. That would be true of any language. And
since such "meta programming capabilities" exist in other languages,
obviously they were thought up at some point when they didn't exist at
all. One need not know of something to be able to invent it... see how
that works. I could dumb it down for you if you want.

> A different example using the same logic: My Mustang doesn't have
> 4-wheel drive so I don't often think much about taking it through the
> creeks and woods by my house like my old man and I do in his Bronco
> that does have 4-wheel drive. A person who has never climbed a really
> steep hill or ran through a waist-high creek in a 4-wheel drive auto
> might think such a thing impossible if they were unaware of 4-wheel
> drive.

Or, and I would consider this the more likely response, they would dream
up such a thing if it didn't already exist and was WANTED/NEEDED. Your
chicken egg logic is completely invalid as illustrated by the current
state of innovation versus what existed when life began. We innovate and
create to fill the void. We don't use because the void was magically
filled with solutions. The millions of PHP developers happily
programming without Ruby or RoR obviously don't NEED all of these meta
things of which you speak. Some may WANT, and maybe they will move to a
language that supports them, but that's a preference, not a requirement.
You do injustice to the many, many intelligent people out there that
intentionally choose PHP over another language that has the features you
of which you speak. You dismiss their experience, reasoning, and
preference and presume yourself superior... get over yourself.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

attached mail follows:

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 15:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> On 3/12/08, Nathan Nobbe <quickshiftingmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Greg Donald <gdonaldgmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, I lost context, what missing PHP language feature are you
> > > referring to as "it"?
> >
> > functional capabilities, in particular the ability to dynamically add a
> > method to an object at runtime which you highlighted earlier.
>
> -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.

+2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
answer to your rhetorical question.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

attached mail follows:

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 15:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> > On 3/12/08, Nathan Nobbe <quickshiftingmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Greg Donald <gdonaldgmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, I lost context, what missing PHP language feature are you
> > > > referring to as "it"?
> > >
> > > functional capabilities, in particular the ability to dynamically add
> a
> > > method to an object at runtime which you highlighted earlier.
> >
> > -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
>
> +2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
> answer to your rhetorical question.

im must be lacking the features to comprehend rhetorical questions.
however, having learned of their existence, im not quite certain im ready to
invest the time to add them to my persona, albiet any superiority they might
exhibit :)

-nathan

attached mail follows:

On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> Yes, but some of your diatribe was originally directed my way. And this
> stuff certainly isn't new to me.

Sure it is, else you'd be using it.. like all the smart PHP
programmers I see on the Rails list looking to expand their tool set
on a daily basis.

> Awwww. you're so considerate... but really, there's no need, I'm sure I
> can understand things well beyond your own capabilities.

There's been no indication of that up to now.

> You're chasing your tail here. That would be true of any language. And
> since such "meta programming capabilities" exist in other languages,
> obviously they were thought up at some point when they didn't exist at
> all. One need not know of something to be able to invent it... see how
> that works. I could dumb it down for you if you want.

You're confusing language designer with language user. A language
user can only use what features he has been provided to use.

You just keep beating that PHP rock with that PHP hammer. Pay no
attention when someone utters the words "better" or "easier". Why not
just go ahead and make yourself a mail filter too.. put
gdonaldgmail.com right at the top.

> of which you speak. You dismiss their experience, reasoning, and
> preference and presume yourself superior...

What reasoning? "I saw a 5 minute tutorial on Rails, I didn't
understand some of it, therefore Ruby sucks?" That's not reasoning
and it certainly doesn't gain one any experience, unless laziness
recently became a virtue.

> get over yourself.

You first.

--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/

attached mail follows:

On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> > -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
>
> +2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
> answer to your rhetorical question.

-1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack.

-1 for thinking +2 exists.

--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/

attached mail follows:

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> > > -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
> >
> > +2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
> > answer to your rhetorical question.
>
> -1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack.
>
> -1 for thinking +2 exists.

*Yawn*

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

attached mail follows:

Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
>>>
>>> +2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
>>> answer to your rhetorical question.
>>>
>> -1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack.
>>
>> -1 for thinking +2 exists.
>>
>
> *Yawn*
>

-5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of you)

Aschwin Wesselius

attached mail follows:

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> > Yes, but some of your diatribe was originally directed my way. And this
> > stuff certainly isn't new to me.
>
> Sure it is, else you'd be using it.. like all the smart PHP
> programmers I see on the Rails list looking to expand their tool set
> on a daily basis.

Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
of playing with flashy toys. I like to use tools that get jobs done.

> > Awwww. you're so considerate... but really, there's no need, I'm sure I
> > can understand things well beyond your own capabilities.
>
> There's been no indication of that up to now.

I try not to flaunt it... humility teaches volumes. I could send you a
care package if you want... I'll even throw in some T.P. to help you
clean up your act.

> > You're chasing your tail here. That would be true of any language. And
> > since such "meta programming capabilities" exist in other languages,
> > obviously they were thought up at some point when they didn't exist at
> > all. One need not know of something to be able to invent it... see how
> > that works. I could dumb it down for you if you want.
>
> You're confusing language designer with language user. A language
> user can only use what features he has been provided to use.

I'm not confusing anything. A language user can propose features, and
even implement them via another language to add them to the language in
question. In open source there's plenty of overlap between language
designer and language user.

> You just keep beating that PHP rock with that PHP hammer. Pay no
> attention when someone utters the words "better" or "easier".

Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off
"better" and "easier". After reviewing, looking at the language, trying
some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the
web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a
fetus, that I preferred PHP.

> Why not just go ahead and make yourself a mail filter too.. put
> gdonaldgmail.com right at the top.

But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda?

> > of which you speak. You dismiss their experience, reasoning, and
> > preference and presume yourself superior...
>
> What reasoning? "I saw a 5 minute tutorial on Rails, I didn't
> understand some of it, therefore Ruby sucks?" That's not reasoning
> and it certainly doesn't gain one any experience,

You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5
minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions. Didn't you
see the episode of Cheers about what happens when you "assume"?

> unless laziness recently became a virtue.

Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation.
Do more with less. That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but
not blindly.

> > get over yourself.
>
> You first.

Been there, done that. Now it's your turn.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

attached mail follows:

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 22:26 +0100, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> > -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
> >>>
> >>> +2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
> >>> answer to your rhetorical question.
> >>>
> >> -1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack.
> >>
> >> -1 for thinking +2 exists.
> >>
> >
> > *Yawn*
> >
>
> -5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of you)

You're new around here right?

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

attached mail follows:

On 3/12/08, Aschwin Wesselius <aschwinilluminated.nl> wrote:
> -5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of you)

Playing the game by claiming the game is wrong to play is still
playing the game.

-1 for playing the game hypocritically.

-1 for thinking -5 exists.

--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/

attached mail follows:

Will you two pricks cut it out. How fucking tedious.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com>
wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 22:26 +0100, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
> > Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> > -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
> > >>>
> > >>> +2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
> > >>> answer to your rhetorical question.
> > >>>
> > >> -1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack.
> > >>
> > >> -1 for thinking +2 exists.
> > >>
> > >
> > > *Yawn*
> > >
> >
> > -5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of
> you)
>
> You're new around here right?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
> --
> http://www.interjinn.com
> Application and Templating Framework for PHP
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

attached mail follows:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Goodchild [mailto:buddhamagnetgmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:37 PM
> To: Robert Cummings
> Cc: Aschwin Wesselius; Greg Donald; php-generallists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
>
> Will you two pricks cut it out. How f* tedious.

Will you be so kind not to use taboo words to hit other people on this list?

Thanks,

Rob(inet)

PS: Middle-posting is cool!

>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 22:26 +0100, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
> > > Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> > -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
> > > >>> answer to your rhetorical question.
> > > >>>
> > > >> -1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack.
> > > >>
> > > >> -1 for thinking +2 exists.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > *Yawn*
> > > >
> > >
> > > -5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of
> > you)
> >
> > You're new around here right?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rob.
> > --
> > http://www.interjinn.com
> > Application and Templating Framework for PHP
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >

attached mail follows:

On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
> got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
> of playing with flashy toys. I like to use tools that get jobs done.

Translation: I'm too lazy to learn anything new since I already know PHP.

Languages come and go. There's a reason why we no longer need a
cgi-bin and Perl to make an animated gif. Going further, who the hell
even uses animated gifs any more?

> Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off
> "better" and "easier". After reviewing, looking at the language, trying
> some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the
> web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a
> fetus, that I preferred PHP.

Great, just so long as we're clear on the point that Ruby is better
than PHP, just not for you personally. I'm totally fine with leaving
the discussion at the "differently preferred opinion" level. Sounds
like a cop-out but I'm ok with your holding that position all the
same.

> But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda?

I do exhibit a bit of rhetoric at times, but in my defense it came
standard with my inquisitive mind.

Conversely I do not know what propaganda you speak of. I've never
once made a specific claim in favor of Ruby that I couldn't back up
with example code.

> You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5
> minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions.

Ok then, how many projects did you pursue before giving up and
concluding Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn? URL?

I will point out it's probably a good thing this same lack of effort
on your part did not occur when you began to learn PHP, otherwise we
wouldn't even be having this discussion.

> Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation.
> Do more with less.

Well that sure as hell ain't PHP. ROFL. More with less, using PHP, hilarious.

/me points to SPL and laughs his ass off

> That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but
> not blindly.

If by blindly you mean fun, fast, test-driven, productive development,
then yeah I guess so.

--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/

attached mail follows:

On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> You're new around here right?

Hehe. For sure.

--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/

attached mail follows:

Greg Donald wrote:
> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>> Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
>> got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
>> of playing with flashy toys. I like to use tools that get jobs done.
>
> Translation: I'm too lazy to learn anything new since I already know PHP.
>
> Languages come and go. There's a reason why we no longer need a
> cgi-bin and Perl to make an animated gif. Going further, who the hell
> even uses animated gifs any more?
>
>> Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off
>> "better" and "easier". After reviewing, looking at the language, trying
>> some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the
>> web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a
>> fetus, that I preferred PHP.
>
> Great, just so long as we're clear on the point that Ruby is better
> than PHP, just not for you personally. I'm totally fine with leaving
> the discussion at the "differently preferred opinion" level. Sounds
> like a cop-out but I'm ok with your holding that position all the
> same.
>
>> But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda?
>
> I do exhibit a bit of rhetoric at times, but in my defense it came
> standard with my inquisitive mind.
>
> Conversely I do not know what propaganda you speak of. I've never
> once made a specific claim in favor of Ruby that I couldn't back up
> with example code.
>
>> You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5
>> minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions.
>
> Ok then, how many projects did you pursue before giving up and
> concluding Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn? URL?
>
> I will point out it's probably a good thing this same lack of effort
> on your part did not occur when you began to learn PHP, otherwise we
> wouldn't even be having this discussion.
>
>> Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation.
>> Do more with less.
>
> Well that sure as hell ain't PHP. ROFL. More with less, using PHP, hilarious.
>
> /me points to SPL and laughs his ass off
>
>> That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but
>> not blindly.
>
> If by blindly you mean fun, fast, test-driven, productive development,
> then yeah I guess so.
>
>

I didn't want to have to do this, but read some of Terry Chay's work on
Ruby. There are plenty of people who just prefer PHP to RoR. Some
people like Java, some people like .NET, etc. Get over yourself. You
come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better? What did you
expect? It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby.
The community is insane!

This was a great read. If nothing else he's funny.

http://terrychay.com/blog/article/php-ruby-evil-good.shtml

--
Ray Hauge
www.primateapplications.com

attached mail follows:

On 3/12/08, Dave Goodchild <buddhamagnetgmail.com> wrote:
> Will you two pricks cut it out. How fucking tedious.

Tedious? Sorry.

/me passes the "buddhamagnet" a dictionary so he can keep up.

--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/

attached mail follows:

Ray Hauge wrote:
> Greg Donald wrote:
>> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>>> Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
>>> got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
>>> of playing with flashy toys. I like to use tools that get jobs done.
>>
>> Translation: I'm too lazy to learn anything new since I already know PHP.
>>
>> Languages come and go. There's a reason why we no longer need a
>> cgi-bin and Perl to make an animated gif. Going further, who the hell
>> even uses animated gifs any more?
>>
>>> Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off
>>> "better" and "easier". After reviewing, looking at the language, trying
>>> some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching
>>> the
>>> web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a
>>> fetus, that I preferred PHP.
>>
>> Great, just so long as we're clear on the point that Ruby is better
>> than PHP, just not for you personally. I'm totally fine with leaving
>> the discussion at the "differently preferred opinion" level. Sounds
>> like a cop-out but I'm ok with your holding that position all the
>> same.
>>
>>> But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda?
>>
>> I do exhibit a bit of rhetoric at times, but in my defense it came
>> standard with my inquisitive mind.
>>
>> Conversely I do not know what propaganda you speak of. I've never
>> once made a specific claim in favor of Ruby that I couldn't back up
>> with example code.
>>
>>> You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5
>>> minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions.
>>
>> Ok then, how many projects did you pursue before giving up and
>> concluding Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn? URL?
>>
>> I will point out it's probably a good thing this same lack of effort
>> on your part did not occur when you began to learn PHP, otherwise we
>> wouldn't even be having this discussion.
>>
>>> Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation.
>>> Do more with less.
>>
>> Well that sure as hell ain't PHP. ROFL. More with less, using PHP,
>> hilarious.
>>
>> /me points to SPL and laughs his ass off
>>
>>> That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but
>>> not blindly.
>>
>> If by blindly you mean fun, fast, test-driven, productive development,
>> then yeah I guess so.
>>
>>
>
> I didn't want to have to do this, but read some of Terry Chay's work on
> Ruby. There are plenty of people who just prefer PHP to RoR. Some
> people like Java, some people like .NET, etc. Get over yourself. You
> come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better? What did you
> expect? It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby. The
> community is insane!
>
> This was a great read. If nothing else he's funny.
>
> http://terrychay.com/blog/article/php-ruby-evil-good.shtml
>

One last link, because this one is the one that has caused the most
"controversy" (for lack of a better word).

http://terrychay.com/blog/article/is-ruby-the-dog-and-php-the-dogfood.shtml

--
Ray Hauge
www.primateapplications.com

attached mail follows:

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 21:36 +0000, Dave Goodchild wrote:
> Will you two pricks cut it out. How fucking tedious.

Wow! Way to totally devolve a good thread.

:B

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

attached mail follows:

Dave Goodchild wrote:
> Will you two pricks cut it out. How fucking tedious.

That's so rude.... has nobody told you that we prefer bottom-posting on
this list? I guess not.... /me shakes head.

:p

Col

attached mail follows:

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 17:05 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> > Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
> > got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
> > of playing with flashy toys. I like to use tools that get jobs done.
>
> Translation: I'm too lazy to learn anything new since I already know PHP.
>
> Languages come and go. There's a reason why we no longer need a
> cgi-bin and Perl to make an animated gif. Going further, who the hell
> even uses animated gifs any more?

Hmmm, in the spirit of your lazy comment... I actually learned to do web
coding using C code, then Perl, then I moved onto PHP. I have nothing
against learning new things... I'm constantly learning... I even learned
I don't like Ruby.

> > Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off
> > "better" and "easier". After reviewing, looking at the language, trying
> > some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the
> > web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a
> > fetus, that I preferred PHP.
>
> Great, just so long as we're clear on the point that Ruby is better
> than PHP, just not for you personally. I'm totally fine with leaving
> the discussion at the "differently preferred opinion" level. Sounds
> like a cop-out but I'm ok with your holding that position all the
> same.

It's not a cop out. It's a choice. Whether Ruby is better than PHP
remains to be seen. There are many measurements of better. Ruby is
slower than PHP, therefore PHP is better. That's just one measurement.
So we're not clear at all on this point. But the original discussion was
more geared towards personal preference concepts of better. PHP is
better for me, because I like PHP more than I like Ruby. I happen to
like butterscotch more than I like licorice too... does that make
butterscotch better than licorice? Yes of course it does... to anyone
that like butterscotch more :)

> > But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda?
>
> I do exhibit a bit of rhetoric at times, but in my defense it came
> standard with my inquisitive mind.
>
> Conversely I do not know what propaganda you speak of. I've never
> once made a specific claim in favor of Ruby that I couldn't back up
> with example code.

You're on a PHP list, we don't want your Ruby code here.

> > You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5
> > minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions.
>
> Ok then, how many projects did you pursue before giving up and
> concluding Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn? URL?

You still don't get it. I didn't decide Rails or Ruby was too much
effort to learn. I decided I didn't like Ruby, and I didn't like Rails
so I didn't bother going further. Why should I work with something I
don't like? I got into programming for the sheer joy of programming and
problem solving... in the spirit of that, I will damn well sheerly enjoy
my programming and problem solving with a language I enjoy working with.
Just because you don't enjoy working with it doesn't mean everyone
shares that sentiment.

> I will point out it's probably a good thing this same lack of effort
> on your part did not occur when you began to learn PHP, otherwise we
> wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Lack of effort? LOL, I put effort where I deem it useful. Why put effort
towards a fad that you don't even like. I'd be less of a person if I
jumped on every bandwagon just to be a crowd pleaser. I'm no sheep, I
follow my own path whether you like it or not.

> > Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation.
> > Do more with less.
>
> Well that sure as hell ain't PHP. ROFL. More with less, using PHP, hilarious.

Seems to me you keep claiming Ruby has all the l33t features. Therefore
by using PHP I MUST be doing more with less.

> /me points to SPL and laughs his ass off

I don't use SPL.

> > That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but
> > not blindly.
>
> If by blindly you mean fun, fast, test-driven, productive development,
> then yeah I guess so.

Blindly would be those people who jumped on the RoR bandwagon and are
now arse deep in water as their ship sinks.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

attached mail follows:

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 17:05 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
> > /me points to SPL and laughs his ass off
>
> I don't use SPL.

i do.

it makes handling recursion and a number of other tasks a breeze. not
liking it because the identifier names are too long is silly (greg). get an
editor w/ code completion if its that big of an issue for you. o wow, my
identifiers are smaller, that makes my language easier... not in my book, i
actually prefer longer names for variables when the terms are easier to
understand that way. its a technique for making code self documenting, and
if i were a ruby programmer i would use it there as well. there is a
balance that needs to be struck for any highly successful api, obviously
shorter names can be a bit easier to remember, at least to remember what the
names are, but if RecursiveIteratorIterator were RII, i would probly be like
RII, hmm.., i remember the name but not what its for; so id still end up
going back to the manual every time any way. the best apis are ones that
are so consistent and pragmatic, client developers can remember most of it
w/o going back to the manual and that includes identifiers, their respective
parameter signatures and the semantics. i would venture to say that where
spl has some long identifiers for class names (which i dont consider an
issue) the api is much more consistent than the standard php api, so in all
i consider it better than the standard api.

the standard api inverts arguments for example in array functions. if all
of these functions took an array as the first argument, i wouldnt have to
check the docs every time or switch the argument order after the script
blows up the first time. also there are multiple naming conventions used as
you can see, using underscores, abbreviating / smashing into one complete
term, and camel case (which does appear to be almost exclusively for classes
[so thats not so bad]). its not the end of the world, but its also not
consistent like spl. i know spl is much younger than php itself so the
evolution of its api has not been drawn out over many years. thats probly
one reason why the standard api is a bit inconsistent, but for w/e reason
there it is. the spl api is cleaner than the standard one.

int *array_push* ( array &$array , mixed $var [, mixed $... ] )
bool *in_array* ( mixed $needle , array $haystack [, bool $strict ] )

string *bcadd* ( string $left_operand , string $right_operand [, int $scale] )
*DOMCharacterData->appendData()*look at string functions for more examples
if you want (http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.strings.php)

-nathan

attached mail follows:

Stut wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2008, at 17:31, Wolf wrote:
>> ---- Richard Heyes <richardhphpguru.org> wrote:
>>> Greg Donald wrote:
>>>> You're
>>>> gonna restrict the entire development team from using a given feature
>>>> just because you don't want to invest 20 minutes in getting your
>>>> newbie developer up to spead? That's pure idiocy.
>>>
>>> No it's not. It's not like require_once() is a hassle to type/use
>>> anyhow. Things like editor macros and templates help out enormously and
>>> by using them over __auto load you (a business) could save yourself a
>>> lot of time and hence money.
>>
>> I actually prefer to use a site prepend and append, then in the
>> prepend file is where I throw all my requires and such. pretty much
>> takes care of any learning curve since with the prepended file doing
>> the heavy lifting.
>
> But by doing so you're including a lot of code you almost certainly
> don't use on every page. That can pointlessly consume resources on a
> busy server.
Actually, I do use it on every page, as it handles all the user
authentication checks. ;)

> I use __autoload (and for new projects the SPL version) because I know
> that anyone who can't "get it" within 5 minutes is not someone I want to
> work with.
I gotta agree with you there, I don't limit things because someone can't
"get it" within a reasonable amount of time.

> Not using language features because some developers might not know about
> it is going to restrict you to the sort of instruction set you get in
> Assembler. I've been working with PHP for a very long time and I
> certainly don't claim to know everything about it or about every feature
> it has. Restrict your code in that way and you'll create a slow
> unmaintainable mess.

I hate unmaintanable code, it gets REALLY difficult to handle. I go
through and re-write my old code as I learn more new "tricks" with the
newer versions of PHP. After 7 years I am still learning new things
with it.

Wolf

attached mail follows:

http://us2.php.net/manual/en/features.file-upload.put-method.php

Hello All,
?I'm trying to use a PUT request to send files to a server. I'm wondering if there's a way to return something like a pass/fail code to the stream to catch on the other side.

?PHP side I'm using the code in the Example from the link above.. and it works great.

On the other side, in case someone has experience with this specifically, even thought it's not PHP related, I'm use C#.
newStream = myRequest.GetRequestStream();

newStream.Write(inData, 0, bytesRead);

I was thinking I should be able to get a Response Stream.

Thanks for any help,
Scott

attached mail follows:

Hello All,
?I'm doing a POST using httpwebrequest in a Pocket PC C# application to send a file over a stream buffer to a php page on an Apache server. I'm able to not only get ?variablename=value via a $_REQUEST, but also the entire file over php://input.

It all works, I'm just not sure it's proper or the best way to do this. Should i be getting a $_REQUEST and a file via php://input in the same php page? Other problems with doing this?

Nothing seems to come over $_FILE.. when i do a print_r on that, all i get is the number "1"... I was thinking the file might be handled by php and stored as a temp file, but it doesn't seem to be.

Thanks for any help and suggestions,
Scott

attached mail follows:

Andrés Robinet wrote:
> I want a framework I can plug a microphone in, and talk to it, and it does the
> job for me (really, I need it). But I guess we are far away from that.
>
You need it? And what happens if you won't get it in a life time?
> If you need REAL RAD ("a la Delphi"), use VCL for PHP... you'll still have to
> write the event handlers (you can't save yourself from coding) and you will have
> to stick with Codegear (you are of those who pay for software, right?).
>
REAL RAD? Is that an acronym or is that emphasis? But no thanks. If I've
paid around 1000 dollars on software, that would be a bit much. And that
must have been a decade ago.
> If you are looking for a flexible PHP 5 framework, where each component is more
> or less independent of the others, try the Zend Framework.
>
That's what is on my list of candidates, yes.
> If you want a lot of features bundled into a big and fat box, and you need PHP 4
> support, use CakePHP. Even the way you name database tables will be affected,
> but if you eat a piece of the cake you are likely to want it all anyway.
>
Wait..... PHP 4? I admit that I don't use all the OOP of PHP 5, but
really I don't let myself be forced to use deprecated software if it is
my income. No, I haven't touched PHP 4 like 3,5 years now.
> If you want a flexible and easy to use PHP 4 and PHP 5 framework and you are
> willing to wait more than six months for each minor release, you can use
> CodeIgniter.
>
Ok, that one is of my list of candidates then.
> If you are rich, you can pay us (the PHP-list members) to build one for you :D.
> It will be a complete disaster because we'll never agree on the features, but
> you'll entertain yourself with our discussions for months.
>
I think I keep that in mind when I've become rich and lonely and need
some entertainment.
> If your IQ is greater than 150 you can try writing your own.
>
Is IQ really relevant to being capable of writing your own framework?
Ok, an IQ of 70 won't get you advanced software out of your hands. I've
an IQ between 160 and 170 (lost the score along the path somewhere). But
I couldn't be bothered to write my own framework just to invent some
wheels to have a nice ride. It could be a challenge and might even be
rewarding afterwards, but in the mean while it won't get me anywhere. So
much for RAD and then writing your own framework..... Must be kidding ;-)

OK, thanks for your input. Some points are really helpful!

Aschwin Wesselius

attached mail follows:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aschwin Wesselius [mailto:aschwinilluminated.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: php-generallists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP] Frameworks
>
> Hi all,
>
> Maybe this has past the list a couple of times (just like the 'storing
> images in a DB' question).
>
> What I'm after is a framework that is simple, solid, compact and
> flexible enough to extend by myself.
>
> I'm not an OOP person. But I do use classes when I think they fit a
> purpose. But most of all I want a framework that has the wheels I don't
> want to reinvent myself but do make sense to have.
>
> Like:
> - Informative error-handling
> - DB layer, not too abstract please
> - Form handling
> - etc.
>
> What is a good framework to start with? What framework doesn't make it
> too complex that it says it gives you RAD but actually let's you sink in
> code?
>
> I don't have to develop enterprise stuff. I want to manage information
> for myself and maybe build a blog or whatever to play with. What let's
> build things quick so you can focus on things to test instead in
> building the surrounding elements?
>
> Again, maybe I've to dive into archives etc. But that doesn't give me
> answers I need I guess.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Aschwin Wesselius

I want a framework I can plug a microphone in, and talk to it, and it does the
job for me (really, I need it). But I guess we are far away from that.

If you need REAL RAD ("a la Delphi"), use VCL for PHP... you'll still have to
write the event handlers (you can't save yourself from coding) and you will have
to stick with Codegear (you are of those who pay for software, right?).

If you are looking for a flexible PHP 5 framework, where each component is more
or less independent of the others, try the Zend Framework.

If you want a lot of features bundled into a big and fat box, and you need PHP 4
support, use CakePHP. Even the way you name database tables will be affected,
but if you eat a piece of the cake you are likely to want it all anyway.

If you want a flexible and easy to use PHP 4 and PHP 5 framework and you are
willing to wait more than six months for each minor release, you can use
CodeIgniter.

If you are rich, you can pay us (the PHP-list members) to build one for you :D.
It will be a complete disaster because we'll never agree on the features, but
you'll entertain yourself with our discussions for months.

If your IQ is greater than 150 you can try writing your own.

Otherwise, ask Robert Cummings or Manuel Lemos.

Regards,

Rob

Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION 
5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 |
TEL 954-607-4296 | FAX 954-337-2695 |
Email: infobestplace.net  | MSN Chat: bestbestplace.net  |  SKYPE: bestplace |
 Web: bestplace.biz  | Web: seo-diy.com

attached mail follows:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aschwin Wesselius [mailto:aschwinilluminated.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:04 PM
> To: Andrés Robinet
> Cc: php-generallists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] Frameworks
>
> Andrés Robinet wrote:
> > I want a framework I can plug a microphone in, and talk to it, and it
> does the
> > job for me (really, I need it). But I guess we are far away from that.
> >
> You need it? And what happens if you won't get it in a life time?
> > If you need REAL RAD ("a la Delphi"), use VCL for PHP... you'll still
> have to
> > write the event handlers (you can't save yourself from coding) and you
> will have
> > to stick with Codegear (you are of those who pay for software, right?).
> >
> REAL RAD? Is that an acronym or is that emphasis? But no thanks. If I've
> paid around 1000 dollars on software, that would be a bit much. And that
> must have been a decade ago.
> > If you are looking for a flexible PHP 5 framework, where each component
> is more
> > or less independent of the others, try the Zend Framework.
> >
> That's what is on my list of candidates, yes.
> > If you want a lot of features bundled into a big and fat box, and you
> need PHP 4
> > support, use CakePHP. Even the way you name database tables will be
> affected,
> > but if you eat a piece of the cake you are likely to want it all anyway.
> >
> Wait..... PHP 4? I admit that I don't use all the OOP of PHP 5, but
> really I don't let myself be forced to use deprecated software if it is
> my income. No, I haven't touched PHP 4 like 3,5 years now.
> > If you want a flexible and easy to use PHP 4 and PHP 5 framework and you
> are
> > willing to wait more than six months for each minor release, you can use
> > CodeIgniter.
> >
> Ok, that one is of my list of candidates then.
> > If you are rich, you can pay us (the PHP-list members) to build one for
> you :D.
> > It will be a complete disaster because we'll never agree on the features,
> but
> > you'll entertain yourself with our discussions for months.
> >
> I think I keep that in mind when I've become rich and lonely and need
> some entertainment.
> > If your IQ is greater than 150 you can try writing your own.
> >
> Is IQ really relevant to being capable of writing your own framework?
> Ok, an IQ of 70 won't get you advanced software out of your hands. I've
> an IQ between 160 and 170 (lost the score along the path somewhere). But
> I couldn't be bothered to write my own framework just to invent some
> wheels to have a nice ride. It could be a challenge and might even be
> rewarding afterwards, but in the mean while it won't get me anywhere. So
> much for RAD and then writing your own framework..... Must be kidding ;-)
>
> OK, thanks for your input. Some points are really helpful!
>
> Aschwin Wesselius

I'm not kidding about the *REAL RAD* thing. RAD is Rapid Application
Development, and I don't think anything can be faster than dragging a button
component on a *form-like* window, then double clicking on it, writing *echo
"Hello World!"* and hit F9. There you are, you got a *Hello world* in some
seconds, no need for special set up, or writing controller/model/view code
whatsoever. However, I wouldn't use Delphi for PHP because it's a proprietary
thing, it's a fat dog and you must pay some REAL bucks for it. And... as soon as
you get more serious with what you want to do, you need to get very close with
the code behind the scenes... which means you have to put much more time and
effort than you would need for a *standard* MVC framework. Sorry, not something
I'm willing to do for a web application. I prefer coding controllers, models and
views. That's also why I'm reactive to sniff into Prado or even QCodo (which I
think disserves some attention to me, because of the underlying *build system*).

Compare that to a ZF component... once you learn it, you can use it wherever you
want (generally), even if you are not using ZF for the MVC part (take
Zend_Http_Client, Zend_Pdf as examples).

Now, take CodeIgniter... I liked it because it had many *out-of-the-box*
features and components. Also, some clients still had PHP 4 and I couldn't do
anything about it. Dealing with it is fairly easy (don't expect cutting-edge
magic out of its components though). I fell in love with rapyd
http://www.rapyd.com/ which is based on CodeIgniter and simplifies most backend
tasks a bunch. But now, rapyd is discontinued (the CI version at least) and we
have kohanaPHP as an alternative (http://kohanaphp.com/). To make it worse,
CodeIgniter took several (I think more than 6) months to upgrade from 1.5.4 to
1.6. Why? Because they rely on integrating it with their commercial *Expression
Engine* product (and they even stated that in their forums). And the
*framework-nightmare* started all over again for me.

Wanna know what I'm planning to do? Embrace the Zend Framework, it's solid, it's
powerful, it's got a company behind and it's still free. And now that PHP 4 has
been discontinued, I have the perfect *excuse* to say NO to whatever project has
PHP 4 for hosting... They upgrade their PHP version, or they take our PHP 5
hosting offer, or they can go elsewhere for a quote. PERIOD.

You must be very careful what framework you choose if it's critical for your
daily work, otherwise you'd better off not picking a framework but building your
own *baby* (reinventing the wheel has the advantage of giving you full control
over the engineering process... you can build a wheel that sucks, but it is
still your wheel and you have full control over it, you know it, and you can
make it better).

And about IQ, I think I got 142 on a test I did long time ago, the normal range
was near 100 (say 90-110 or 80-120, can't remember). I have built some
components of my own, and several function libraries and such... I just inducted
that at least 150 is a good starting point to be able to *put it all together*
in a framework-like fashion, which I couldn't do so far.

I wasn't kidding about Robert or Manuel. Knowledge flows in their veins. Robert
has a framework of his own and Manuel has the (possibly) biggest directory of
stand-alone classes and had developed some *monsters* such as Metabase, long
before PDO was known and adopted.

Anyway... you will get one thousand opinions about Frameworks, and 90% of them
may be correct. Choose the framework you like after playing around with some
examples and having an overview of the reference manual (forgot to say,
documentation is really important to get you started).

Regards,

Rob(inet)

Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION 
5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 |
TEL 954-607-4296 | FAX 954-337-2695 |
Email: infobestplace.net  | MSN Chat: bestbestplace.net  |  SKYPE: bestplace |
 Web: bestplace.biz  | Web: seo-diy.com

attached mail follows:

Andrés Robinet wrote:
> Anyway... you will get one thousand opinions about Frameworks, and 90% of them
> may be correct. Choose the framework you like after playing around with some
> examples and having an overview of the reference manual (forgot to say,
> documentation is really important to get you started).
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob(inet)
>
Thanks again. I think you've set out exactly an opinion I was after. Off
course it all depends on which level one has stepped in, is now and
wants to be when start using a framework.

I've not taken the step to build my own or tested anything as an early
adoptor on any of them. But I see that RAD makes the difference
nowadays. Time is money. People want more features in less time etc. If
I don't get used to a framework very soon, I'm out of business.

I want to do the whole thing. I want an environment that takes a lot of
fuss out of my hands:
- Unit testing, never done it, but sounds reasonable.
- MVC, makes sense but can be interpreted over the top.
- DB abstraction.... The environments I've been in don't switch from
DB's over night, so I don't care.
I wanna see my queries and where they come from, period. I don't need no
fricking querybuilding stuff.
- Form handling. Validation is key. Security is important, so sanitizing
input must be done as early as possible.
- Error handling. Get information back from your code. I need that
together with Unit testing. Should save debugging time.
etc.

Voila, all arguments for a good framework. Zend sounds really a stable
and reliable product. I'm gonna setup a testserver and see how far it goes.

BTW, any people having experience with PHP UnderControl?

Aschwin Wesselius

attached mail follows:

At 10:20 PM -0700 3/10/08, Mike wrote:
>Wait, what?
>
>You are defining user role ids as MD5 hashes of UUIDs created from
>random numbers that change on every request?
>
>Am I missing something or is this completely insane advice?

Mike:

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter. Each session generates
one ID for each type of user.

It doesn't matter if the user comes back tomorrow and the actual
number is different than it was yesterday. The point is that the
number used for that user during that time is defined uniquely.

Granted, this is a little disturbing -- but my second suggestion to
use a string is a little less disturbing.

Cheers,

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

attached mail follows:

At 10:15 AM -0400 3/11/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 11:18 +0000, Richard Heyes wrote:
> > Well, bearing in mind I only have experience of MySQL, the general
>> consensus is to save it to a file on you hard drive and store the file
>> name in the database. If for whatever reason you can't or don't want to
>> do that, then at least store it in a separate table that only gets
>> touched when the image is requested.
>
>Can you point me to a link where I can read about this so-called
>"general consensus"? :)
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.

There's no general consensus -- it all depends upon needs.

Some needs are better served by using the file system while others
are better served by using a database.

There's plenty of discussion on this in the archives.

Cheers,

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

attached mail follows:

Steve Finkelstein wrote:
> So, I use a Mac to develop with. I used to host Zend Core on my box,
> until I switched to the MAMP PRO framework.
>
> Unfortunately somewhere in between, this lovely issue started occuring
> with my CLI binary of PHP:
>
> foo:~ sf$ php -l
> dyld: NSLinkModule() error
> dyld: Symbol not found: _zend_extensions
> Referenced from: /usr/local/Zend/Core/lib/zend/ZendExtensionManager.so
> Expected in: flat namespace

Did you use a new version of php? Is there an update for zend core?
Maybe there's a mismatch there.

--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/

attached mail follows:

> as you can see my Return-Path is still pointing on the wrong direction :-(
> any other idea ?

return-path is set with the 5th mail() param:

mail($to, $subject, $body, $headers, '-freturn_path_emailaddress.com');

--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/

attached mail follows:

Hi Chris,

interesting thing, but i get the following error message :
*Warning*: mail()
[function.mail<http://test4.rogtek.com/common/function.mail>]:
SAFE MODE Restriction in effect. The fifth parameter is disabled in SAFE
MODE. in */test4/common/sendmail.php* on line *119*

how can i solve this by only PHP ? i do not have access to web hosting
server or php.ini.
thx,
Alain.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Chris <dmagickgmail.com> wrote:

>
> > as you can see my Return-Path is still pointing on the wrong direction
> :-(
> > any other idea ?
>
> return-path is set with the 5th mail() param:
>
> mail($to, $subject, $body, $headers, '-freturn_path_emailaddress.com');
>
>
> --
> Postgresql & php tutorials
> http://www.designmagick.com/
>

--
Alain
------------------------------------
Windows XP SP2
PostgreSQL 8.2.4 / MS SQL server 2005
Apache 2.2.4
PHP 5.2.4
C# 2005-2008

attached mail follows:

Alain Roger wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> interesting thing, but i get the following error message :
> *Warning*: mail() [function.mail
> <http://test4.rogtek.com/common/function.mail>]: SAFE MODE Restriction
> in effect. The fifth parameter is disabled in SAFE MODE. in
> */test4/common/sendmail.php* on line *119*
>
> how can i solve this by only PHP ? i do not have access to web hosting
> server or php.ini.

1 of 2 options.

1) Find another host with safe-mode disabled
2) Use something like phpmailer to send your emails through an smtp server

--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/

attached mail follows:

Quoting Shelley <myphplistgmail.com>:

> I don't think it works.
>
> I tried.
> The screen always said 0%, 0 of 0 byte until the file is uploaded.
> Is that what you mean progress bar?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Shelley (http://phparch.cn)

It work fine. And that's what we meant by progress bar.

--
Roger

---------------------------------------------------
Sign Up for free Email at http://ureg.home.net.my/
---------------------------------------------------

attached mail follows:

Hello,

on 03/12/2008 12:24 AM Shelley said the following:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm searching some file upload progress bar code.
> But no good result was found. :(
> So is there anybody please be kind enough to show some code here?

You may want to take a look at this forms generation and validation
class that comes with a plug-in to do precisely that. Check the
test_upload_progress.php example script.

http://www.phpclasses.org/formsgeneration

Here is a live example page so you can see it in action:

http://www.meta-language.net/forms-examples.html?example=test_upload_progress

You can also watch this tutorial video to learn more about this plug-in:

http://www.phpclasses.org/browse/video/1/package/1/section/plugin-upload-meter.html

You may also want to read this blog article about the subject:

http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/61-File-upload-progress-meter-for-PHP-4-at-last.html

--

Regards,
Manuel Lemos

PHP professionals looking for PHP jobs
http://www.phpclasses.org/professionals/

PHP Classes - Free ready to use OOP components written in PHP
http://www.phpclasses.org/

attached mail follows:

I have a routine that uses the PEAR module CRYPT_BLOWFISH to encrypt a
value and then base64_encode() to create a printable string. If I
reverse the process on the same host I get the orginal value however if
I do the reverse processing on a different host the result is garbage.

Shouldn't both the encryption and the encoding/decoding be host
independent? Aren't both routines standard, public algorithms that
should be reversable even between different operating systems? That's
not my case since both are linux but one is php4 and the other php5.
If that's the problem, why?

--
"There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire.
 The other is to gain it." -- George Bernard Shaw
    Rick Pasotto rickniof.net http://www.niof.net

attached mail follows:

Rick Pasotto wrote:
> I have a routine that uses the PEAR module CRYPT_BLOWFISH to encrypt a
> value and then base64_encode() to create a printable string. If I
> reverse the process on the same host I get the orginal value however if
> I do the reverse processing on a different host the result is garbage.
>
> Shouldn't both the encryption and the encoding/decoding be host
> independent? Aren't both routines standard, public algorithms that
> should be reversable even between different operating systems? That's
> not my case since both are linux but one is php4 and the other php5.
> If that's the problem, why?

More appropriate for a pear list really, but what happens in the pear
module if a particular encryption method isn't available? Maybe host "A"
has extra MCRYPT options that host "B" doesn't.

--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/

attached mail follows:

Hello

I have a swf that runs a PHP script that generates a XML, on the PHP is
there any way to detect if the file is being called from the swf or from
the browser? because I want to avoid the file being run directly from
the browser or from any other file than the swf.

regards,
Hugo.

attached mail follows:

May the get_Browser function could tell you if it's from the .swf ?

http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.get-browser.php

H u g o H i r a m wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have a swf that runs a PHP script that generates a XML, on the PHP
> is there any way to detect if the file is being called from the swf or
> from the browser? because I want to avoid the file being run directly
> from the browser or from any other file than the swf.
>
> regards,
> Hugo.
>

attached mail follows:

At 3:55 AM +0100 3/13/08, H u g o H i r a m wrote:
>Hello
>
>I have a swf that runs a PHP script that generates a XML, on the PHP
>is there any way to detect if the file is being called from the swf
>or from the browser? because I want to avoid the file being run
>directly from the browser or from any other file than the swf.
>
>regards,
>Hugo.

You might want to check the HTTP_REFERER value; test the program from
a browser and the swf, and see what happens. Alternatively you could
use a GET parameter like

    http://example.com/yourscript.php?calledby=swf

Be aware that anything sent back from the client can be spoofed - and
HTTP_REFERER can be altered or disabled - so it probably wouldn't be
hard for someone to make it appear to your script that it is being
called by your SWF.

If you're really concerned about restricting the communication
between the Flash movie and your server, there might be some way to
build a challenge-response mechanism into the flash; I don't know
much about it.

If, on the other hand, you just don't want to confuse someone who
might accidentally run the XML-generating script from the browser,
checking a GET parameter as above is probably the safest. If it's not
set properly, redirect the user, eg:

    if (!isset($_GET['calledby']) || $_GET['calledby'] != 'swf') {
       header('Location: http://example.com/thecorrectpage.html');
       exit();
    }
    ...

        - steve

--
+--------------- my people are the people of the dessert, ---------------+
| Steve Edberg http://pgfsun.ucdavis.edu/ |
| UC Davis Genome Center sbedbergucdavis.edu |
| Bioinformatics programming/database/sysadmin (530)754-9127 |
+---------------- said t e lawrence, picking up his fork ----------------+

attached mail follows:

H u g o H i r a m wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have a swf that runs a PHP script that generates a XML, on the PHP is
> there any way to detect if the file is being called from the swf or from
> the browser? because I want to avoid the file being run directly from
> the browser or from any other file than the swf.
>
> regards,
> Hugo.
>
Install Firebug extension for your Firefox browser
Load your page in the browser with firebug running
Watch the calls being made and that should answer the question

You can also look at the web server logs to see which page is calling
your script.

Wolf

attached mail follows:

 Hi,

I need to be able to do the following procedure;

retrieve all items from a mysql db table, then check to see if the files from that table exist on the server (images), if not, to "clean up" and remove the physical file - so that only the files from the db exist.

This will run via cron

Has anyone done something similar before, willing to assist me with a basic scope of actions to work on?

Thanks in advance

Steven

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]