|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
php-general-digest-help
lists.php.net
Date: Thu Mar 27 2008 - 18:15:40 CDT
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
php-general Digest 27 Mar 2008 23:15:40 -0000 Issue 5371
Topics (messages 272154 through 272186):
Re: optimilize web page loading
272154 by: jeffry s
272162 by: Philip Thompson
272170 by: Al
272172 by: Shawn McKenzie
272174 by: Jason Pruim
272175 by: Shawn McKenzie
272176 by: Shawn McKenzie
272177 by: tedd
272180 by: Peter Ford
272182 by: Eric Butera
Pattern etc to reduce duplicated validation?
272155 by: David Lidstone
272156 by: Peter Ford
272158 by: Eric Butera
Re: Quick email address check
272157 by: Richard Heyes
How to install PHP 5.x on Windows Server 2000 with IIS 5 and MySQL 5.x
272159 by: edwardspl.ita.org.mo
272164 by: Wolf
272165 by: Paul Scott
272166 by: Philip Thompson
272169 by: Shawn McKenzie
WAMP servers
272160 by: Rod Clay
272161 by: Bastien Koert
272163 by: Ashley M. Kirchner
272167 by: Haig Dedeyan
272171 by: Shawn McKenzie
Developing existing java portal in php
272168 by: Sangamesh B
272173 by: Wolf
272185 by: ganu
Possible using XPath?
272178 by: Christoph Boget
272179 by: Robin Vickery
272181 by: Christoph Boget
272183 by: Robin Vickery
Having problems with XMLDocument
272184 by: Christoph Boget
php_mssql.so
272186 by: Liz Kim
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 Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some rather
> large html strings and they
> aways take far less time than the transient time on the internet. I used
> to use OB extensively until
> one day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall the
> numbers; but, I do recall it
> was not worth the slight extra trouble to use OB.
>
> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And then
> echo $report at the end. It
> also makes the code very easy to read and follow.
>
> Andrew Ballard wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
> >> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
> >>
> >> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all your
> html string as a variable and
> >> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the minimum
> number of packets.
> >
> > Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow things
> > down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much difference,
> > but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully obvious.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
I am also doing the same way. assemble the string and echo it at the end
attached mail follows:
On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Al wrote:
> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some
> rather large html strings and they aways take far less time than the
> transient time on the internet. I used to use OB extensively until
> one day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall
> the numbers; but, I do recall it was not worth the slight extra
> trouble to use OB.
>
> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And
> then echo $report at the end. It also makes the code very easy to
> read and follow.
You might as well take it a step further. Change the above to:
$report .= 'foo';
This way for literal strings, the PHP parser doesn't have to evaluate
this string to determine if anything needs to be translated (e.g.,
$report .= "I like to $foo"). A minimal speedup, but nonetheless...
~Philip
> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
>>> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
>>>
>>> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all your
>>> html string as a variable and
>>> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the minimum
>>> number of packets.
>> Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow
>> things
>> down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much
>> difference,
>> but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully obvious.
>> Andrew
attached mail follows:
Good point. I usually do use the single quotes, just happened to key doubles for the email.
Actually, it's good idea for all variable assignments.
Philip Thompson wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Al wrote:
>> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some rather
>> large html strings and they aways take far less time than the
>> transient time on the internet. I used to use OB extensively until one
>> day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall the
>> numbers; but, I do recall it was not worth the slight extra trouble to
>> use OB.
>>
>> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And then
>> echo $report at the end. It also makes the code very easy to read and
>> follow.
>
> You might as well take it a step further. Change the above to:
>
> $report .= 'foo';
>
> This way for literal strings, the PHP parser doesn't have to evaluate
> this string to determine if anything needs to be translated (e.g.,
> $report .= "I like to $foo"). A minimal speedup, but nonetheless...
>
> ~Philip
>
>
>> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
>>>> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
>>>>
>>>> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all your
>>>> html string as a variable and
>>>> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the minimum
>>>> number of packets.
>>> Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow things
>>> down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much difference,
>>> but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully obvious.
>>> Andrew
attached mail follows:
Al wrote:
> Good point. I usually do use the single quotes, just happened to key
> doubles for the email.
>
> Actually, it's good idea for all variable assignments.
>
> Philip Thompson wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Al wrote:
>>> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some
>>> rather large html strings and they aways take far less time than the
>>> transient time on the internet. I used to use OB extensively until
>>> one day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall the
>>> numbers; but, I do recall it was not worth the slight extra trouble
>>> to use OB.
>>>
>>> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And
>>> then echo $report at the end. It also makes the code very easy to
>>> read and follow.
>>
>> You might as well take it a step further. Change the above to:
>>
>> $report .= 'foo';
>>
>> This way for literal strings, the PHP parser doesn't have to evaluate
>> this string to determine if anything needs to be translated (e.g.,
>> $report .= "I like to $foo"). A minimal speedup, but nonetheless...
>>
>> ~Philip
>>
>>
>>> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
>>>>> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all your
>>>>> html string as a variable and
>>>>> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the minimum
>>>>> number of packets.
>>>> Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow things
>>>> down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much difference,
>>>> but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully obvious.
>>>> Andrew
Yes and if your script takes .00000000000000000000000000000002 seconds
to run using double quotes it will only take
.000000000000000000000000000000019 seconds with single (depending upon
how many quotes you have of course) :-)
-Shawn
attached mail follows:
On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> Al wrote:
>> Good point. I usually do use the single quotes, just happened to key
>> doubles for the email.
>>
>> Actually, it's good idea for all variable assignments.
>>
>> Philip Thompson wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Al wrote:
>>>> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some
>>>> rather large html strings and they aways take far less time than
>>>> the
>>>> transient time on the internet. I used to use OB extensively until
>>>> one day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall
>>>> the
>>>> numbers; but, I do recall it was not worth the slight extra trouble
>>>> to use OB.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And
>>>> then echo $report at the end. It also makes the code very easy to
>>>> read and follow.
>>>
>>> You might as well take it a step further. Change the above to:
>>>
>>> $report .= 'foo';
>>>
>>> This way for literal strings, the PHP parser doesn't have to
>>> evaluate
>>> this string to determine if anything needs to be translated (e.g.,
>>> $report .= "I like to $foo"). A minimal speedup, but nonetheless...
>>>
>>> ~Philip
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
>>>>>> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> html string as a variable and
>>>>>> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the
>>>>>> minimum
>>>>>> number of packets.
>>>>> Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow
>>>>> things
>>>>> down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much
>>>>> difference,
>>>>> but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully
>>>>> obvious.
>>>>> Andrew
>
> Yes and if your script takes .00000000000000000000000000000002 seconds
> to run using double quotes it will only take
> .000000000000000000000000000000019 seconds with single (depending upon
> how many quotes you have of course) :-)
I'm coming in late to this thread so sorry if I missed this :)
How much of a difference would it make if you have something like
this: echo "$foo bar bar bar bar $foo $foo"; verses: echo $foo . "bar
bar bar bar" . $foo $foo; ?In other words... You have a large
application which is most likely to be faster? :)
>
>
> -Shawn
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Jason Pruim
Raoset Inc.
Technology Manager
MQC Specialist
3251 132nd ave
Holland, MI, 49424-9337
www.raoset.com
japruimraoset.com
attached mail follows:
Jason Pruim wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
>> Al wrote:
>>> Good point. I usually do use the single quotes, just happened to key
>>> doubles for the email.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's good idea for all variable assignments.
>>>
>>> Philip Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Al wrote:
>>>>> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some
>>>>> rather large html strings and they aways take far less time than the
>>>>> transient time on the internet. I used to use OB extensively until
>>>>> one day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall the
>>>>> numbers; but, I do recall it was not worth the slight extra trouble
>>>>> to use OB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And
>>>>> then echo $report at the end. It also makes the code very easy to
>>>>> read and follow.
>>>>
>>>> You might as well take it a step further. Change the above to:
>>>>
>>>> $report .= 'foo';
>>>>
>>>> This way for literal strings, the PHP parser doesn't have to evaluate
>>>> this string to determine if anything needs to be translated (e.g.,
>>>> $report .= "I like to $foo"). A minimal speedup, but nonetheless...
>>>>
>>>> ~Philip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all your
>>>>>>> html string as a variable and
>>>>>>> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the minimum
>>>>>>> number of packets.
>>>>>> Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow
>>>>>> things
>>>>>> down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much
>>>>>> difference,
>>>>>> but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully obvious.
>>>>>> Andrew
>>
>> Yes and if your script takes .00000000000000000000000000000002 seconds
>> to run using double quotes it will only take
>> .000000000000000000000000000000019 seconds with single (depending upon
>> how many quotes you have of course) :-)
>
> I'm coming in late to this thread so sorry if I missed this :)
>
> How much of a difference would it make if you have something like this:
> echo "$foo bar bar bar bar $foo $foo"; verses: echo $foo . "bar bar bar
> bar" . $foo $foo; ?In other words... You have a large application which
> is most likely to be faster? :)
>
>
>>
>>
>> -Shawn
>>
>> --
>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Jason Pruim
> Raoset Inc.
> Technology Manager
> MQC Specialist
> 3251 132nd ave
> Holland, MI, 49424-9337
> www.raoset.com
> japruimraoset.com
>
>
>
I would assume your 2 examples to be the same because the point is that
the PHP interpreter must parse for vars to substitute when it encounters
double-quotes whether there are any vars in it or not. With
single-quotes the interpreter does not have to worry about it.
Regardless, the speed diff is probably negligible, hence my flame
inviting post. :-)
-Shawn
attached mail follows:
Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> Jason Pruim wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
>>> Al wrote:
>>>> Good point. I usually do use the single quotes, just happened to key
>>>> doubles for the email.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's good idea for all variable assignments.
>>>>
>>>> Philip Thompson wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Al wrote:
>>>>>> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some
>>>>>> rather large html strings and they aways take far less time than the
>>>>>> transient time on the internet. I used to use OB extensively until
>>>>>> one day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall the
>>>>>> numbers; but, I do recall it was not worth the slight extra trouble
>>>>>> to use OB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And
>>>>>> then echo $report at the end. It also makes the code very easy to
>>>>>> read and follow.
>>>>> You might as well take it a step further. Change the above to:
>>>>>
>>>>> $report .= 'foo';
>>>>>
>>>>> This way for literal strings, the PHP parser doesn't have to evaluate
>>>>> this string to determine if anything needs to be translated (e.g.,
>>>>> $report .= "I like to $foo"). A minimal speedup, but nonetheless...
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Philip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all your
>>>>>>>> html string as a variable and
>>>>>>>> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the minimum
>>>>>>>> number of packets.
>>>>>>> Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>> down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much
>>>>>>> difference,
>>>>>>> but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully obvious.
>>>>>>> Andrew
>>> Yes and if your script takes .00000000000000000000000000000002 seconds
>>> to run using double quotes it will only take
>>> .000000000000000000000000000000019 seconds with single (depending upon
>>> how many quotes you have of course) :-)
>> I'm coming in late to this thread so sorry if I missed this :)
>>
>> How much of a difference would it make if you have something like this:
>> echo "$foo bar bar bar bar $foo $foo"; verses: echo $foo . "bar bar bar
>> bar" . $foo $foo; ?In other words... You have a large application which
>> is most likely to be faster? :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Shawn
>>>
>>> --
>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>> Jason Pruim
>> Raoset Inc.
>> Technology Manager
>> MQC Specialist
>> 3251 132nd ave
>> Holland, MI, 49424-9337
>> www.raoset.com
>> japruimraoset.com
>>
>>
>>
> I would assume your 2 examples to be the same because the point is that
> the PHP interpreter must parse for vars to substitute when it encounters
> double-quotes whether there are any vars in it or not. With
> single-quotes the interpreter does not have to worry about it.
> Regardless, the speed diff is probably negligible, hence my flame
> inviting post. :-)
>
> -Shawn
Actually: echo $foo . "bar bar bar bar" . $foo $foo;
Should be: echo $foo . "bar bar bar bar" . $foo . " " . $foo;
So this would be 'slower' because there are 2 separate instances of
double-quotes for the interpreter to parse for vars.
-Shawn
attached mail follows:
At 10:21 AM -0500 3/27/08, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
>
>I would assume your 2 examples to be the same because the point is that
>the PHP interpreter must parse for vars to substitute when it encounters
>double-quotes whether there are any vars in it or not. With
>single-quotes the interpreter does not have to worry about it.
>Regardless, the speed diff is probably negligible, hence my flame
>inviting post. :-)
>
>-Shawn
-Shawn:
The time difference is not the reason why I use single and double
quotes. I do it for two reasons: 1) It's good coding practice to know
what's happening in the background and consider it; 2) If I use a
single quote, then I know that statement does not contain a variable
-- it's a form of documentation for me.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
Jason Pruim wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
>> Al wrote:
>>> Good point. I usually do use the single quotes, just happened to key
>>> doubles for the email.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's good idea for all variable assignments.
>>>
>>> Philip Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Al wrote:
>>>>> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some
>>>>> rather large html strings and they aways take far less time than the
>>>>> transient time on the internet. I used to use OB extensively until
>>>>> one day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall the
>>>>> numbers; but, I do recall it was not worth the slight extra trouble
>>>>> to use OB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And
>>>>> then echo $report at the end. It also makes the code very easy to
>>>>> read and follow.
>>>>
>>>> You might as well take it a step further. Change the above to:
>>>>
>>>> $report .= 'foo';
>>>>
>>>> This way for literal strings, the PHP parser doesn't have to evaluate
>>>> this string to determine if anything needs to be translated (e.g.,
>>>> $report .= "I like to $foo"). A minimal speedup, but nonetheless...
>>>>
>>>> ~Philip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all your
>>>>>>> html string as a variable and
>>>>>>> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the minimum
>>>>>>> number of packets.
>>>>>> Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow
>>>>>> things
>>>>>> down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much
>>>>>> difference,
>>>>>> but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully obvious.
>>>>>> Andrew
>>
>> Yes and if your script takes .00000000000000000000000000000002 seconds
>> to run using double quotes it will only take
>> .000000000000000000000000000000019 seconds with single (depending upon
>> how many quotes you have of course) :-)
>
> I'm coming in late to this thread so sorry if I missed this :)
>
> How much of a difference would it make if you have something like this:
> echo "$foo bar bar bar bar $foo $foo"; verses: echo $foo . "bar bar bar
> bar" . $foo $foo; ?In other words... You have a large application which
> is most likely to be faster? :)
>
>
There was a discussion about this a few weeks ago - ISTR that the compiler does
wierd things with double-quoted strings, something like tokenising the words and
checking each bit for lurking variables.
So in fact
echo "$foo bar bar bar bar $foo $foo";
is slowest (because there *are* variables to interpolate,
echo $foo . " bar bar bar bar ".$foo." ".$foo;
is a bit faster, but the double-quoted bits cause some slow-down,
echo $foo . ' bar bar bar bar '.$foo.' '.$foo;
is a bit faster again - the single quoted bits pass through without further
inspection, and finally
echo $foo,' bar bar bar bar ',$foo,' ',$foo;
is actually the fastest, because the strings are not concatenated before output.
I think that was the overall summary - I can't locate the original post to
verify (or attribute) but it's in this list somewhere...
Cheers
--
Peter Ford phone: 01580 893333
Developer fax: 01580 893399
Justcroft International Ltd., Staplehurst, Kent
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Peter Ford <petejustcroft.com> wrote:
>
> Jason Pruim wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> >> Al wrote:
> >>> Good point. I usually do use the single quotes, just happened to key
> >>> doubles for the email.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, it's good idea for all variable assignments.
> >>>
> >>> Philip Thompson wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Al wrote:
> >>>>> Depends on the server and it's load. I've strung together some
> >>>>> rather large html strings and they aways take far less time than the
> >>>>> transient time on the internet. I used to use OB extensively until
> >>>>> one day I took the time to measure the difference. I don't recall the
> >>>>> numbers; but, I do recall it was not worth the slight extra trouble
> >>>>> to use OB.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, I simple assemble by html strings with $report .= "foo"; And
> >>>>> then echo $report at the end. It also makes the code very easy to
> >>>>> read and follow.
> >>>>
> >>>> You might as well take it a step further. Change the above to:
> >>>>
> >>>> $report .= 'foo';
> >>>>
> >>>> This way for literal strings, the PHP parser doesn't have to evaluate
> >>>> this string to determine if anything needs to be translated (e.g.,
> >>>> $report .= "I like to $foo"). A minimal speedup, but nonetheless...
> >>>>
> >>>> ~Philip
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Andrew Ballard wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Al <newsridersite.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> You are really asking an HTML question, if you think about it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At the PHP level, either use output buffering or assemble all your
> >>>>>>> html string as a variable and
> >>>>>>> then echo it. The goal is to compress the string into the minimum
> >>>>>>> number of packets.
> >>>>>> Yes, but do so smartly. Excessive string concatenation can slow
> >>>>>> things
> >>>>>> down as well. On most pages you probably won't notice much
> >>>>>> difference,
> >>>>>> but I have seen instances where the difference was painfully obvious.
> >>>>>> Andrew
> >>
> >> Yes and if your script takes .00000000000000000000000000000002 seconds
> >> to run using double quotes it will only take
> >> .000000000000000000000000000000019 seconds with single (depending upon
> >> how many quotes you have of course) :-)
> >
> > I'm coming in late to this thread so sorry if I missed this :)
> >
> > How much of a difference would it make if you have something like this:
> > echo "$foo bar bar bar bar $foo $foo"; verses: echo $foo . "bar bar bar
> > bar" . $foo $foo; ?In other words... You have a large application which
> > is most likely to be faster? :)
> >
> >
>
> There was a discussion about this a few weeks ago - ISTR that the compiler does
> wierd things with double-quoted strings, something like tokenising the words and
> checking each bit for lurking variables.
> So in fact
>
>
> echo "$foo bar bar bar bar $foo $foo";
>
> is slowest (because there *are* variables to interpolate,
>
>
> echo $foo . " bar bar bar bar ".$foo." ".$foo;
>
> is a bit faster, but the double-quoted bits cause some slow-down,
>
>
> echo $foo . ' bar bar bar bar '.$foo.' '.$foo;
>
> is a bit faster again - the single quoted bits pass through without further
> inspection, and finally
>
>
> echo $foo,' bar bar bar bar ',$foo,' ',$foo;
>
> is actually the fastest, because the strings are not concatenated before output.
>
> I think that was the overall summary - I can't locate the original post to
> verify (or attribute) but it's in this list somewhere...
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Peter Ford phone: 01580 893333
> Developer fax: 01580 893399
> Justcroft International Ltd., Staplehurst, Kent
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Can you prove these statements with real benchmarks that are current?
Ilia said that it is a myth that there is a performance difference
between " and ' in one of his talks.
attached mail follows:
Hi All
I seem to be writing a lot of this:
//======== SCRIPT =========
$var = $_POST['var'];
// validate $var
$foo = new foo;
$foo->setBar($var);
//======== CLASS ==========
class foo {
public function setBar($var) {
// validate $var
}
}
As you can see, the "issue" is that I am validating the input in my
script, and then again in my class... surely unwanted duplication!?
Obviously (I think!), I need to be validating at the level of my class,
so does anyone have a pattern / strategy to help ease the pain... a way
of using the validation in the class to validate the script and return
meaningful errors to the user?? Throwing errors and forcing the script
to catch them perhaps?
I have tried a few validation classes etc and they have not really
addressed this issue. Perhaps I should just live with it and get on with
it! :)
Many thanks for your help, David
attached mail follows:
David Lidstone wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I seem to be writing a lot of this:
>
>
> //======== SCRIPT =========
> $var = $_POST['var'];
>
> // validate $var
>
> $foo = new foo;
> $foo->setBar($var);
>
>
> //======== CLASS ==========
> class foo {
> public function setBar($var) {
> // validate $var
> }
> }
>
>
> As you can see, the "issue" is that I am validating the input in my
> script, and then again in my class... surely unwanted duplication!?
> Obviously (I think!), I need to be validating at the level of my class,
> so does anyone have a pattern / strategy to help ease the pain... a way
> of using the validation in the class to validate the script and return
> meaningful errors to the user?? Throwing errors and forcing the script
> to catch them perhaps?
> I have tried a few validation classes etc and they have not really
> addressed this issue. Perhaps I should just live with it and get on with
> it! :)
>
> Many thanks for your help, David
Well, you could try looking at using exceptions:
//==== CLASS ====
class foo
{
public function setBar($var)
{
if ( var_is_NOT_a_valid_value_for_bar )
{
throw new Exception('Invalid value for bar in class foo');
}
}
}
// ===== Script =====
$var = $_POST['var'];
$foo = new foo();
try
{
$foo->setBar($var);
}
catch (Exception $e)
{
echo 'An error occurred: ',$e->getMessage(),"\n";
}
Take a look at http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.exceptions.php
--
Peter Ford phone: 01580 893333
Developer fax: 01580 893399
Justcroft International Ltd., Staplehurst, Kent
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:36 AM, David Lidstone <dnewselocal.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I seem to be writing a lot of this:
>
>
> //======== SCRIPT =========
> $var = $_POST['var'];
>
> // validate $var
>
> $foo = new foo;
> $foo->setBar($var);
>
>
> //======== CLASS ==========
> class foo {
> public function setBar($var) {
> // validate $var
> }
> }
>
>
> As you can see, the "issue" is that I am validating the input in my
> script, and then again in my class... surely unwanted duplication!?
> Obviously (I think!), I need to be validating at the level of my class,
> so does anyone have a pattern / strategy to help ease the pain... a way
> of using the validation in the class to validate the script and return
> meaningful errors to the user?? Throwing errors and forcing the script
> to catch them perhaps?
> I have tried a few validation classes etc and they have not really
> addressed this issue. Perhaps I should just live with it and get on with
> it! :)
>
> Many thanks for your help, David
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I used to have this issue too. After years of coding and studying
I've realized that the validation belongs where you get the user
input. It doesn't belong in your class. Your class should just
assume the parameters are exactly what you expect. Your burden is to
always make sure that data is pristine before it gets injected.
If you don't then you're going to end up with a mess. Your class will
get bloated with unnecessary error handling code. Of course this
isn't a 100% solution. Sometimes you do still need to check the
parameters.
So wherever you start using input data that is where you validate.
That is where you handle errors if something is wrong such as
re-displaying the form. Don't use the values inside your code if it
is wrong. This way you can see it is very obvious what you're using
and that it is clean and how you're dealing with it if it is wrong.
attached mail follows:
> All good suggestions guys. Richard's has the advantage of solving the
> potential for a delay by the user's email server.
>
> I'll have the user submit and tell'm to wait while I check the email
> address for them. Solves several problems.
>
> Al wrote:
>> I'm scripting a simple registry where the user can input their name
>> and email address.
>>
>> I'd like to do a quick validity check on the email address they just
>> inputted. I can check the syntax, etc. but want check if the address
>> exists. I realize that servers can take a long time to bounce etc.
>> I'll just deal with this separately.
>>
>> Is there a better way than simply sending a test email to see if it
>> bounces?
The Mail/RFC822 class in PEAR has a quick(er) static method for checking
the format of an Interweb email address.
Mail_RFC822::isValidInetAddress()
IIRC
--
Richard Heyes
Employ me:
http://www.phpguru.org/cv
attached mail follows:
Hello to All,
Would you mind to help as the title of mail ?
Thanks !
Edward.
attached mail follows:
---- edwardsplita.org.mo wrote:
> Hello to All,
>
> Would you mind to help as the title of mail ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> Edward.
>
What problems are you having?
Have you read the Manual yet?
I'd suggest going with a real operating system (linux) which keeps patches updated quicker...
Wolf
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 10:32 -0400, Wolf wrote:
> I'd suggest going with a real operating system (linux) which keeps patches updated quicker...
>
As much of a Free Software advocate as I am, that is not the answer to
the question. That being said, however, I would replace the IIS with
Apache2 at least...
I seem to remember someone posting a really good guide to setting this
all up at some stage, so a quick search through the archives should
reveal all.
--Paul
--
------------------------------------------------------------.
| Chisimba PHP5 Framework - http://avoir.uwc.ac.za |
:------------------------------------------------------------:
All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer
http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm
attached mail follows:
On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:24 AM, edwardsplita.org.mo wrote:
> Hello to All,
>
> Would you mind to help as the title of mail ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> Edward.
Ok, I understand that sometimes people *have* to use a certain OS, but
I would not use IIS - Apache is your friend.
As far as your question goes... have you RTFM? Here, I'll even provide
you a link:
http://php.net/manual/en/install.windows.php
~Philip
attached mail follows:
Paul Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 10:32 -0400, Wolf wrote:
>> I'd suggest going with a real operating system (linux) which keeps patches updated quicker...
>>
>
> As much of a Free Software advocate as I am, that is not the answer to
> the question. That being said, however, I would replace the IIS with
> Apache2 at least...
>
> I seem to remember someone posting a really good guide to setting this
> all up at some stage, so a quick search through the archives should
> reveal all.
>
>
> --Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer
> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm
Download the zip and read the install.txt. It doesn't get any easier
than that. It's very straight forward and has worked for me every time.
-Shawn
attached mail follows:
Hello. Does anyone use a WAMP server? And, if so, have you found one
to be better than another?
I am using a WAMP server entitled, aptly enough, WampServer (formerly
WAMP5). In the few weeks I have been using it, I frequently get
messages that a certain library or routine cannot be found. My question
therefore is: do these WAMP servers typically come with all of the php
libraries and subroutines that are most commonly needed? I have the
impression that this WAMP server does not have some of the libraries and
subroutines I need (or would very much benefit from having, anyway).
Thanks for any information you can give me about WAMP servers.
Rod Clay
clay.1osu.edu
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Rod Clay <rclaycolumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> Hello. Does anyone use a WAMP server? And, if so, have you found one
> to be better than another?
>
> I am using a WAMP server entitled, aptly enough, WampServer (formerly
> WAMP5). In the few weeks I have been using it, I frequently get
> messages that a certain library or routine cannot be found. My question
> therefore is: do these WAMP servers typically come with all of the php
> libraries and subroutines that are most commonly needed? I have the
> impression that this WAMP server does not have some of the libraries and
> subroutines I need (or would very much benefit from having, anyway).
>
> Thanks for any information you can give me about WAMP servers.
>
>
I recommend installing the individual pieces yourself. Then you end up with
a more current and maintainable install. And you learn to do this all
yourself
--
Bastien
Cat, the other other white meat
attached mail follows:
Rod Clay wrote:
> Hello. Does anyone use a WAMP server? And, if so, have you found one
> to be better than another?
>
> I am using a WAMP server entitled, aptly enough, WampServer (formerly
> WAMP5). In the few weeks I have been using it, I frequently get
> messages that a certain library or routine cannot be found. My
> question therefore is: do these WAMP servers typically come with all
> of the php libraries and subroutines that are most commonly needed? I
> have the impression that this WAMP server does not have some of the
> libraries and subroutines I need (or would very much benefit from
> having, anyway).
>
> Thanks for any information you can give me about WAMP servers.
>
> Rod Clay
> clay.1osu.edu
>
Don't know anything about WAMP, but I run XAMPP on my laptop.
http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp-windows.html
--
H | It's not a bug - it's an undocumented feature.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley M. Kirchner <mailto:ashleypcraft.com> . 303.442.6410 x130
IT Director / SysAdmin / Websmith . 800.441.3873 x130
Photo Craft Imaging . 3550 Arapahoe Ave. #6
http://www.pcraft.com ..... . . . Boulder, CO 80303, U.S.A.
attached mail follows:
http://apache2triad.net/ is also good.
Haig
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
> Rod Clay wrote:
>> Hello. Does anyone use a WAMP server? And, if so, have you found
>> one to be better than another?
>>
>> I am using a WAMP server entitled, aptly enough, WampServer (formerly
>> WAMP5). In the few weeks I have been using it, I frequently get
>> messages that a certain library or routine cannot be found. My
>> question therefore is: do these WAMP servers typically come with all
>> of the php libraries and subroutines that are most commonly needed?
>> I have the impression that this WAMP server does not have some of the
>> libraries and subroutines I need (or would very much benefit from
>> having, anyway).
>>
>> Thanks for any information you can give me about WAMP servers.
>>
>> Rod Clay
>> clay.1osu.edu
>>
> Don't know anything about WAMP, but I run XAMPP on my laptop.
>
> http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp-windows.html
>
attached mail follows:
Bastien Koert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Rod Clay <rclaycolumbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello. Does anyone use a WAMP server? And, if so, have you found one
>> to be better than another?
>>
>> I am using a WAMP server entitled, aptly enough, WampServer (formerly
>> WAMP5). In the few weeks I have been using it, I frequently get
>> messages that a certain library or routine cannot be found. My question
>> therefore is: do these WAMP servers typically come with all of the php
>> libraries and subroutines that are most commonly needed? I have the
>> impression that this WAMP server does not have some of the libraries and
>> subroutines I need (or would very much benefit from having, anyway).
>>
>> Thanks for any information you can give me about WAMP servers.
>>
>>
>
>
> I recommend installing the individual pieces yourself. Then you end up with
> a more current and maintainable install. And you learn to do this all
> yourself
>
I second this, especially if all you need is AMP (not mail, perl
etc...). Apache and MySQL come with a windows installer so you just hit
next, next, next, finish, and PHP you just unzip and add some lines to
you're Apache httpd.conf and you're all set.
-Shawn
attached mail follows:
Hi all,
Here is one web portal product which is already developed using java tools.
I don't know java, php or perl. But I can learn php quickly compared to
java.
My question is: Is it possible to develop such web portal using php & html?
Let me explain how the java portal/product works:
The user logs in to the portal with his user name and password thru web
browser by using a public ip or for example say xyz-portal.com
The user name and password are the user names of the Linux OS. So username
authentication is required.
In the next page, the user accesses the preinstalled applications ( these
are C or Fortran apps) and submits the job.
While submitting the job, he is allowed to give the command line options and
input file. The input files are present in his home directory. These files
should be listed in combo box.
It doesn't mean that, all installed apps in linux must be listed in the
portal. There should be a mechanism to add a particular application to the
portal ( part of administrator's work). And all apps which are to be
displayed in portal are in a different dir, say /usr/local/bin.
This portal is totally based on the server. i.e. The user accesses the
portal and submits his application job from client system to run the job in
the server. The client system uses only web browser. So other software can
not be used to do this.
Regarding php, I know that linux commands can be bypassed thru php.
So can any one tell me whether this can be done using php with the above
mentioned conditions/facilities?
Thanks & Regards,
Sangamesh
attached mail follows:
---- Sangamesh B <forum.sangmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is one web portal product which is already developed using java tools.
> I don't know java, php or perl. But I can learn php quickly compared to
> java.
>
> My question is: Is it possible to develop such web portal using php & html?
>
> Let me explain how the java portal/product works:
>
> The user logs in to the portal with his user name and password thru web
> browser by using a public ip or for example say xyz-portal.com
>
> The user name and password are the user names of the Linux OS. So username
> authentication is required.
>
> In the next page, the user accesses the preinstalled applications ( these
> are C or Fortran apps) and submits the job.
> While submitting the job, he is allowed to give the command line options and
> input file. The input files are present in his home directory. These files
> should be listed in combo box.
>
> It doesn't mean that, all installed apps in linux must be listed in the
> portal. There should be a mechanism to add a particular application to the
> portal ( part of administrator's work). And all apps which are to be
> displayed in portal are in a different dir, say /usr/local/bin.
>
> This portal is totally based on the server. i.e. The user accesses the
> portal and submits his application job from client system to run the job in
> the server. The client system uses only web browser. So other software can
> not be used to do this.
>
> Regarding php, I know that linux commands can be bypassed thru php.
>
> So can any one tell me whether this can be done using php with the above
> mentioned conditions/facilities?
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sangamesh
Yeah, it can be done. Should be pretty straight forward as the system on the back end should be pretty easily done if you are looking at the code.
Wolf
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Sangamesh B <forum.sangmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is one web portal product which is already developed using java
> tools.
> I don't know java, php or perl. But I can learn php quickly compared to
> java.
Learning PHP,Perl is very easy as compare to Java.
>
>
> My question is: Is it possible to develop such web portal using php &
> html?
Yea, is possible.
>
>
> Let me explain how the java portal/product works:
>
> The user logs in to the portal with his user name and password thru web
> browser by using a public ip or for example say xyz-portal.com
>
> The user name and password are the user names of the Linux OS. So
> username
> authentication is required.
>
> In the next page, the user accesses the preinstalled applications ( these
> are C or Fortran apps) and submits the job.
> While submitting the job, he is allowed to give the command line options
> and
> input file. The input files are present in his home directory. These files
> should be listed in combo box.
>
> It doesn't mean that, all installed apps in linux must be listed in the
> portal. There should be a mechanism to add a particular application to the
> portal ( part of administrator's work). And all apps which are to be
> displayed in portal are in a different dir, say /usr/local/bin.
>
> This portal is totally based on the server. i.e. The user accesses the
> portal and submits his application job from client system to run the job
> in
> the server. The client system uses only web browser. So other software can
> not be used to do this.
>
> Regarding php, I know that linux commands can be bypassed thru php.
>
> So can any one tell me whether this can be done using php with the above
> mentioned conditions/facilities?
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sangamesh
I think you can do all front end things in PHP and html and you can do all
system calls with Perl.
Perl will be fast and easy for all linux things.
you can refer this for calling Perl from PHP page -
http://devzone.zend.com/node/view/id/1712
---
attached mail follows:
Let's say I have the following structure:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<root>
<child id="c1">
<child id="gc1">
<child id="ggc1"/>
<child id="ggc2"/>
</child>
<child id="gc2">
<child id="ggc3"/>
<child id="ggc4"/>
</child>
</child>
<child id="c2">
<child id="gc3">
<child id="ggc5"/>
<child id="ggc6"/>
</child>
<child id="gc4">
<child id="ggc7"/>
<child id="ggc8"/>
</child>
</child>
</root>
By using the following XPath query
//child[id="gc3"]/child
I can get the child nodes of "gc1". But what I'd really like to get
is the sub branch/path going back to the root. So instead of just
returning the two nodes
<child id="ggc5"/>
<child id="ggc6"/>
I'd like to be able to return the sub branch/path
<root>
<child id="c2">
<child id="gc3">
<child id="ggc5"/>
<child id="ggc6"/>
</child>
</child>
</root>
Is that possible? Or is this something I'd have to do programatically
using the nodes returned by the XPath query? Basically, I'm just
trying to get a fragment of the larger xml document...
thnx,
Christoph
attached mail follows:
On 27/03/2008, Christoph Boget <christoph.bogetgmail.com> wrote:
> Let's say I have the following structure:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <root>
> <child id="c1">
> <child id="gc1">
> <child id="ggc1"/>
> <child id="ggc2"/>
> </child>
> <child id="gc2">
> <child id="ggc3"/>
> <child id="ggc4"/>
> </child>
> </child>
> <child id="c2">
> <child id="gc3">
> <child id="ggc5"/>
> <child id="ggc6"/>
> </child>
> <child id="gc4">
> <child id="ggc7"/>
> <child id="ggc8"/>
> </child>
> </child>
> </root>
>
> By using the following XPath query
>
> //child[id="gc3"]/child
>
> I can get the child nodes of "gc1". But what I'd really like to get
> is the sub branch/path going back to the root. So instead of just
> returning the two nodes
>
> <child id="ggc5"/>
> <child id="ggc6"/>
>
> I'd like to be able to return the sub branch/path
>
> <root>
> <child id="c2">
> <child id="gc3">
> <child id="ggc5"/>
> <child id="ggc6"/>
> </child>
> </child>
> </root>
>
> Is that possible? Or is this something I'd have to do programatically
> using the nodes returned by the XPath query? Basically, I'm just
> trying to get a fragment of the larger xml document...
//child[id='gc3']/child/ancestor-or-self::*
-robin
attached mail follows:
> > Is that possible? Or is this something I'd have to do programatically
> > using the nodes returned by the XPath query? Basically, I'm just
> > trying to get a fragment of the larger xml document...
> //child[id='gc3']/child/ancestor-or-self::*
Thanks for the response. However, I must be doing something wrong
here. The test script below isn't doing what I'm expecting:
$xml = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root><child
id="c1"><child id="gc1"><child id="ggc1">Great Grand Child
1</child><child id="ggc2">Great Grand Child 2</child></child><child
id="gc2"><child id="ggc3">Great Grand Child 3</child><child
id="ggc4">Great Grand Child 4</child></child></child><child
id="c2"><child id="gc3"><child id="ggc5">Great Grand Child
5</child><child id="ggc6">Great Grand Child 6</child></child><child
id="gc4"><child id="ggc7">Great Grand Child 7</child><child
id="ggc8">Great Grand Child 8</child></child></child></root>';
$doc = new DOMDocument('1.0', 'UTF-8');
$doc->loadXML( $xml );
$xpath = new DOMXPath($doc);
$nodeList = $xpath->query("//child[id='gc3']/child/ancestor-or-self::*");
echo 'Got list list of [' . $nodeList->length . '] nodes:<br>';
for ($i = 0; $i < $nodeList->length; $i++) {
echo $nodeList->item($i)->nodeValue . "<br>\n";
}
When I run the XPath query through XMLSpy, the correct nodes are
returning. However, when I run it through DOMXPath->query() (or
evaluate() for that matter), it doesn't seem to be returning the
correct nodes.
What's going wrong?
thnx,
Chris
attached mail follows:
On 27/03/2008, Christoph Boget <jcbogetyahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Is that possible? Or is this something I'd have to do programatically
> > > using the nodes returned by the XPath query? Basically, I'm just
> > > trying to get a fragment of the larger xml document...
> > //child[id='gc3']/child/ancestor-or-self::*
>
>
> Thanks for the response. However, I must be doing something wrong
> here. The test script below isn't doing what I'm expecting:
>
> $xml = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root><child
> id="c1"><child id="gc1"><child id="ggc1">Great Grand Child
> 1</child><child id="ggc2">Great Grand Child 2</child></child><child
> id="gc2"><child id="ggc3">Great Grand Child 3</child><child
> id="ggc4">Great Grand Child 4</child></child></child><child
> id="c2"><child id="gc3"><child id="ggc5">Great Grand Child
> 5</child><child id="ggc6">Great Grand Child 6</child></child><child
> id="gc4"><child id="ggc7">Great Grand Child 7</child><child
> id="ggc8">Great Grand Child 8</child></child></child></root>';
>
> $doc = new DOMDocument('1.0', 'UTF-8');
> $doc->loadXML( $xml );
>
> $xpath = new DOMXPath($doc);
> $nodeList = $xpath->query("//child[id='gc3']/child/ancestor-or-self::*");
>
> echo 'Got list list of [' . $nodeList->length . '] nodes:<br>';
> for ($i = 0; $i < $nodeList->length; $i++) {
> echo $nodeList->item($i)->nodeValue . "<br>\n";
> }
>
Only the nodes specified are in the list, but the *values* of the
those nodes include children that aren't in the list.
change your for-loop to this and you'll see just the expected nodes:
foreach ($nodeList as $node) {
echo $node->tagName, ' : ', $node->getAttribute('id'), "<br>\n";
}
does that make sense?
-robin
attached mail follows:
What is wrong with the following code? It's throwing a DOMException
when I try to set the id attribute for the $lvl1Node but I can't see
why...
$doc = new DOMDocument('1.0', 'UTF-8');
$root = $doc->appendChild( $doc->createElement( 'root' ));
for( $a = 0; $a <= 3; $a++ )
{
$lvl_1_id = 'level_1_' . $a;
$lvl1Node = $root->appendChild( $doc->createElement( 'child', $lvl_1_id ));
$lvl1Node->setIdAttribute( 'id', $lvl_1_id );
}
for( $b = 0; $b <= 3; $b++ )
{
$lvl_1_id = 'level_1_' . $b;
$lvl_2_id = 'level_2_' . $b;
$oElTmp = $doc->getElementById( $lvl_1_id );
if( $oElTmp )
{
$lvl2Node = $oElTmp->appendChild( $doc->createElement( 'child',
$lvl_2_id ));
$lvl2Node->setIdAttribute( 'id', $lvl_2_id );
}
else
{
echo 'Could not find element with id [' . $lvl_1_id . ']<br>';
}
}
echo '<pre>' . htmlentities( $doc->saveXML()) . '</pre>';
Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
thnx,
Chris
attached mail follows:
We have a set of PHP files which uses "dl()" to load the extension
"php_mssql.so" at runtime.
These were running on a server with PHP 4.3.9 and have been recently moved
to a new server with PHP 5.1.6 (both RedHat).
I have tried to simply copy the file "php_mssql.so" file to the directory of
PHP modules, however it seems to be not compatible with the new version.
We dont have permissions to recompile PHP on the server but can copy files
on the modules/extensions directory area.
I believe we just need to get the updated "php_mssql.so" file onto the
server.
Any idea where I could download or how to create one?
Thank you,
LK
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]