Re: [PHP] php distributed file system
Shane Hill wrote: > hi folks, > > I am on a couple of php lists and on one of them we were having a > discussion about scalable enterprise class systems to store images for > things like user photo and file uploads, etc. and whether or not > something existed in php to facilitate this. well the discussion > inspired me and I created a scalable, cloud-like app written in php > called phpdfs. Sounds a lot like glusterfs. http://www.gluster.org/ /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (16.1°C) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called) for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and each group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or "standards"). When moving to a new group the new rules will always be different, and will sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this? Why do some groups say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead of A"? Does it make a difference? The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It starts with some wise ass saying (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules. (2) There are no such things as bad rules. (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one. (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different. (5) The rules must be obeyed without question. (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot change the rule. Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of heads, so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this. Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for a certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the rule needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see that it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how the rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances. I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then so be it. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org "Andrew Ballard" wrote in message news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com... > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony > Marston wrote: > [snip] >> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it. > > Now that's some scary ideology. > > Andrew -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thursday 09 July 2009 09:39:11 Tony Marston wrote: > There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST > obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to > this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called) > for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and > each group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or > "standards"). When moving to a new group the new rules will always be > different, and will sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this? > Why do some groups say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead > of A"? Does it make a difference? > > The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It > starts with some wise ass saying > (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules. > (2) There are no such things as bad rules. > (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then > choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one. > (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different. > (5) The rules must be obeyed without question. > (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot > change the rule. > > Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its > existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of heads, > so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this. > > Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for a > certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the rule > needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not > understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see > that it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how > the rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances. > > I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will > keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then so > be it. > > -- > Tony Marston > http://www.tonymarston.net > http://www.radicore.org > > "Andrew Ballard" wrote in message > news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com... > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony > > Marston wrote: > > [snip] > > > >> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it. > > > > Now that's some scary ideology. > > > > Andrew Tony, No offense, but Daniel gave the reason why this rule existed, and it does seem like a fairly good reason to be fair. The emails are archived on several web-based lists. If a thread is made up of a mixture of top and bottom posting, then it won't be easy to read a all online. It might be fine for reading in a message-by-message basis in an email client if you've been following the thread since its inception, but a lot of people will come into a thread part way, or choose the digest method for email delivery rather than one email per message. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
2009/7/9 Tony Marston : > There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST > obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to > this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called) > for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and each > group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or "standards"). > When moving to a new group the new rules will always be different, and will > sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this? Why do some groups > say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead of A"? Does it make a > difference? 1) This is somebody elses property that you're walking all over and they've asked you to remove your shoes. Yes it's arbitrary, no it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things but it's polite to do what they've asked. 2) Correct summary and ordering of the key points in a discussion is not arbitrary, it helps to create messages that you can dip in and out of which needing to read an entire thread (backwards if it's all been left after someone's contribution) to get the context. Plus it creates an archive that has the same benefit. 3) Feel free to do your own thing because it's a free world, but the minimal respect I had for you after our previous discussions on this list has just been destroyed (and no I don't care that you don't care). -Stuart -- http://stut.net/ > "Andrew Ballard" wrote in message > news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com... >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony >> Marston wrote: >> [snip] >>> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it. >> >> Now that's some scary ideology. >> >> Andrew > > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
Sometimes I use bottom posting, sometimes I use top posting, and sometimes I use middle posting. It depends on the circumstances. If a post contains several points that need separate responses, then I put my response under each point, and do not accumulate all at the bottom as this would make it difficult to associate an answer with a question. The fact that some people do not view a thread until nearly the end is irrelevant. If a thread has 30 posts it would make the last post unreadable if it contained everything from the start. Have you seen a post with 30 levels of indenting for each different post? That is why most newsreaders and email clients group messages by conversation/thread so that you can step through each post individually. Each post contains just the response so that you don't have to scroll through huge volumes of text in order to pick out the new message. Sometimes the only part of the previous post you leave in is the part for which you are supplying an answer so as to avoid confusion. Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org "Ashley Sheridan" wrote in message news:200907091022.12752@ashleysheridan.co.uk... > On Thursday 09 July 2009 09:39:11 Tony Marston wrote: >> There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST >> obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe >> to >> this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally >> called) >> for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and >> each group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or >> "standards"). When moving to a new group the new rules will always be >> different, and will sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is >> this? >> Why do some groups say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead >> of A"? Does it make a difference? >> >> The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It >> starts with some wise ass saying >> (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules. >> (2) There are no such things as bad rules. >> (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then >> choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one. >> (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different. >> (5) The rules must be obeyed without question. >> (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot >> change the rule. >> >> Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its >> existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of >> heads, >> so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this. >> >> Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for >> a >> certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the >> rule >> needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not >> understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see >> that it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how >> the rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances. >> >> I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will >> keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then >> so >> be it. >> >> -- >> Tony Marston >> http://www.tonymarston.net >> http://www.radicore.org >> >> "Andrew Ballard" wrote in message >> news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com... >> >> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony >> > Marston wrote: >> > [snip] >> > >> >> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it. >> > >> > Now that's some scary ideology. >> > >> > Andrew > > Tony, > > No offense, but Daniel gave the reason why this rule existed, and it does > seem > like a fairly good reason to be fair. The emails are archived on several > web-based lists. If a thread is made up of a mixture of top and bottom > posting, then it won't be easy to read a all online. It might be fine for > reading in a message-by-message basis in an email client if you've been > following the thread since its inception, but a lot of people will come > into > a thread part way, or choose the digest method for email delivery rather > than > one email per message. > > Thanks, > Ash > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
Tony Marston wrote: Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me. That is a sentiment I would agree with - but for one flaw! The number of people who seem to think that answering with a single line at the top and then including all the advertising and dross that the previous top posted failed to trim as well Top posting has a bad press simply because people are too lazy to think, and in many cases, INCLUDING the original message is a waste of everybody's time ... the one liner is adaquate! The rule should be - if you top post then CHECK that the the rest of the message NEEDS to be included - please . -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
2009/7/9 Tony Marston : > Sometimes I use bottom posting, sometimes I use top posting, and sometimes I > use middle posting. It depends on the circumstances. If a post contains > several points that need separate responses, then I put my response under > each point, and do not accumulate all at the bottom as this would make it > difficult to associate an answer with a question. > > The fact that some people do not view a thread until nearly the end is > irrelevant. If a thread has 30 posts it would make the last post unreadable > if it contained everything from the start. Have you seen a post with 30 > levels of indenting for each different post? That is why most newsreaders > and email clients group messages by conversation/thread so that you can step > through each post individually. Each post contains just the response so that > you don't have to scroll through huge volumes of text in order to pick out > the new message. Sometimes the only part of the previous post you leave in > is the part for which you are supplying an answer so as to avoid confusion. > > Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS > BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me. Quoting http://php.net/reST/php-src/README.MAILINGLIST_RULES... 3. Do not top post. Place your answer underneath anyone you wish to quote and remove any previous comment that is not relevant to your post. That does not say "IT MUST ALWAYS BE AT THE BOTTOM". It says, quite usefully IMHO, that you should quote relevant parts of previous posts and place your response below them. That leaves scope for multiple responses in a single message, each with the relevant part of the previous post quoted. I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people not you, but does that make it a bad rule? I reckon it's the same with the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy and selfish way to "contribute" to the list, especially when you know what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting. Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it. -Stuart -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] php distributed file system
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Per Jessen wrote: > > Sounds a lot like glusterfs. http://www.gluster.org/ yep, it is similar, except I am not aiming to be all that comprehensive of a file system. I really want to create something extremely robust, that can be used in web apps and that will take just a few minutes for even a php novice to get going. I know this is possible to achieve. phpdfs is really no different than a standard php web app, probably easier than most. there are only a couple little classes and the configuration is simple. another thing is all of the code and technologies that phpdfs is built upon are very very familiar to the php community already. just php and your favorite flavor of web server and away you go. thanks for the note, -Shane > > > /Per > > -- > Per Jessen, Zürich (16.1°C) > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"Stuart" wrote in message news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com... 2009/7/9 Tony Marston : > I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London > Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side > of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there > while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who > want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone > to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people > not you, but does that make it a bad rule? Your analogy is urealistic as my choice of top posting has absolutely no effect on any other message is the newsgroup. It has no absolutely no effect on the reader unless the reader chooses to take offence. The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if someone put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it didn't really matter. Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded person you are. > I reckon it's the same with > the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy > and selfish way to "contribute" to the list, That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good enough. > especially when you know > what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting > without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting. There you go with your personal opinions again. > Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on > this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it. > > -Stuart > Good. So stop discussing it. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > > "Stuart" wrote in message > news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com... > 2009/7/9 Tony Marston : > >> I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London >> Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side >> of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there >> while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who >> want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone >> to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people >> not you, but does that make it a bad rule? > > Your analogy is urealistic as my choice of top posting has absolutely no > effect on any other message is the newsgroup. It has no absolutely no effect > on the reader unless the reader chooses to take offence. > > The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed > top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if someone > put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it > didn't really matter. > > Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded person > you are. > >> I reckon it's the same with >> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy >> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list, > > That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not > this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good enough. > >> especially when you know >> what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting >> without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting. > > There you go with your personal opinions again. > >> Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on >> this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it. >> >> -Stuart >> > > Good. So stop discussing it. > > -- > Tony Marston > http://www.tonymarston.net > http://www.radicore.org > > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Tony, The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling. Daniel is a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make valuable contributions to the PHP community. Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to view a standard thread in the list. We don't have to like it, but that is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are not sensible to any specific point of view. I have found that moving to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring. -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"Bastien Koert" wrote in message news:d7b6cab70907090623s6b37641dt90a564f1d80fe...@mail.gmail.com... On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > > "Stuart" wrote in message > news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com... >> 2009/7/9 Tony Marston : >> >> The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed >> top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if >> someone >> put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it >> didn't really matter. >> >> Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded >> person >> you are. >> >>> I reckon it's the same with >>> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy >>> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list, >> >> That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not >> this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good >> enough. >> > Tony, > > The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling. I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just don't care about. I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter, so stop wasting your time in arguing about it. > Daniel is > a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because > of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with > this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make > valuable contributions to the PHP community. Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule. > Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to > view a standard thread in the list. The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi says so. > We don't have to like it, but that > is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are > not sensible to any specific point of view. No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them. > I have found that moving > to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail > displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as > they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try > using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why > I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that > you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring. So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which newsreader I should use? How arrogant! -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org > -- > > Bastien > > Cat, the other other white meat -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just > don't care about. > > I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which > simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair > comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about > when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter, > so stop wasting your time in arguing about it. And it's not just as small minded (I'm not agreeing with you, by the way) to assume that your point is the only valid point in the discussion? Nor is it just as small minded to systematically attack someone, and the community they take part in, because they have the audacity to disagree with you? > Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go > and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule. It's obviously not inconsequential, as you're making such a fuss about it. If it's so inconsequential, why not bottom post and be done with it? > > The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered > to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi > says so. > Congratulations, rule-abiding denizens of php-general, we're now all Nazis! Way to invoke Godwin, by the way, it clearly always wins these internet argu-debates and doesn't make you look like a loon at all. I'm going to take this opportunity to jump on the "no more respect" bandwagon. > So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which > newsreader I should use? How arrogant! "I don't like your rules, rules that existed before I got here and will exist after I leave and are agreed on by the community, so I'll not follow them!" is one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen on this list. He was making a suggestion, ffs, and you just want to be an ass and take everything personally. You're making an entire mountain range out of the proverbial molehill. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > > "Bastien Koert" wrote in message > news:d7b6cab70907090623s6b37641dt90a564f1d80fe...@mail.gmail.com... > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony > Marston wrote: >> >> "Stuart" wrote in message >> news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com... >>> 2009/7/9 Tony Marston : >>> >>> The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed >>> top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if >>> someone >>> put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it >>> didn't really matter. >>> >>> Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded >>> person >>> you are. >>> I reckon it's the same with the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy and selfish way to "contribute" to the list, >>> >>> That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not >>> this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good >>> enough. >>> >> Tony, >> >> The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling. > > I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just > don't care about. > > I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which > simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair > comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about > when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter, > so stop wasting your time in arguing about it. > >> Daniel is >> a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because >> of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with >> this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make >> valuable contributions to the PHP community. > > Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go > and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule. > >> Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to >> view a standard thread in the list. > > The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered > to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi > says so. > >> We don't have to like it, but that >> is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are >> not sensible to any specific point of view. > > No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them. > >> I have found that moving >> to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail >> displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as >> they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try >> using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why >> I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that >> you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring. > > So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which > newsreader I should use? How arrogant! > No, Tony, not dictating at all. Merely sharing my experience. It may or may not work for you, but that is for you to decide. > -- > Tony Marston > http://www.tonymarston.net > http://www.radicore.org > >> -- >> >> Bastien >> >> Cat, the other other white meat > > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
I honestly think this is a case of the subject being broached in a less-than-super-friendly-with-hugs-and-butterflies way and someone getting unduly offended about that. Why not chill out and look at this objectively? Mailing lists are historically, as I'm sure you know, a nearly invaluable research for someone with a problem and a search engine. I would bet that there are few people who subscribe to this list have never found a solution to a problem on a mailing list, somewhere and somewhen. I know I personally subscribed to this list because quite a few questions I had when I was just starting out with PHP came from here and I wasn't subscribing with a news reader at the time. I think you (the OP) is being unnecessarily short-sighted in assuming that 1, everyone has a news reader and uses it to read this list and 2, the threads are only relevant for the duration of their life. The posts here are archived here forever and ever and a rule that suggests posting on either the top or the bottom of the list keeps it consisten for future readers. Breaking that convention because you don't like it is just being grumpy and stickly for no other reason than you can, and potentially harming future developers who could find the information from this list a valuable resource. I like the escalator analogy, because either side of the escalator would do to allow people who want to stand and people who want to walk up to co-exist in harmony, yet there's a standard. Luckily for us, this isn't the New York subway where you get cursed at for standing on the wrong side (I learned that lesson the wrong way when I moved here!). In other words, it's not that top posting is empirically and inherently a worse method than bottom posting, it's that it's a generally accepted standard that helps ensure the longevity of posts on this list. If it was top posting, I'm sure replying would be a lot easier to most of us, but like a dozen people said in the first thread, it takes two seconds to move the cursor each time. Why choose to be overly ornery about a point so trivial? It seems like you're trying to turn this into a "Fight the Power" battle, when the only power you're fighting are your peers. --Eddie -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
Tony Marston wrote: I called [Daniel] "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just don't care about. By "other people" you can only mean yourself, since the number of people disagreeing with you here on this list keeps increasing. I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. You've been told four times at least, top posting interferes with threading for this list and it's been brought up a couple of times at least, top-posting encourages leaving all the trailing dross. Like dingleberries that you are too lazy or ignorant to clean away. You also said to Stuart, but may as well have meant for all who've posted in favor bottom-posting on this list: Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded person you are. With multiple valid reasons and increasing numbers supporting the status quo for this list, you've thus-far persisted in calling it an arbitrary rule that need not be followed. That seems pretty small-minded indeed, for the 30-year professional you claim to be. SL -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
my 2¢: Wherever/whenever the feeling level has been damaged, then/there communication stops. We can easily forget this in the dry environment of talking to computers.. but the important matter(s) will always come back to the *people* involved, sooner or later. Real power is measured in terms of nourishing ability... in nourishing the subtle feeling of those around us. -Govinda -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 09:54, Tony Marston wrote: > > I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just > don't care about. Point #1: You're obviously wrong, as this thread has already received more replies than most on-topic, PHP-centric threads. > I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which > simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair > comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about > when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter, > so stop wasting your time in arguing about it. Point #2: When attempting to prove your case, do your best to keep your facts and players straight --- you did not call me either of these things; you placed your unnecessary opinion of such on Stuart. And while that really doesn't sit well with me, it's just becoming more and more evident that you, like many others in the past, will simply wind up being ignored by the majority of the list, save for folks who don't know or don't care about your lack of respect for them. > Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go > and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule. Had I been a hippie as well, I might just be inclined to agree with you. So if we're throwing opinions around, let mine ring loud and clear: thank God I'm not. Besides, I couldn't have pulled off the bellbottom look, and in all my years, I still can't grow a half-decent beard (which means that joining al-Qaeda may be out of my future as well darn). > The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered > to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi > says so. You change the topic for each newsgroup, don't you? And you do it out of respect for the context of that particular group. You wouldn't (well, maybe *you* would) ask a question about a carburetor on a mailing list for expectant mothers, which makes sense. Following a simple rule by not top-posting makes sense as well, which has been outlined already. Your greatest failure in this argument, Tony, is not being able to articulate your proof as to *why* it's a stupid rule. All I've been able to ascertain to date is that you (ALWAYS) have an opinion as to why the Establishment is a Bad Thing[tm], and how The Man will never be able to keep you down. Fight the power, Marston. Spread the word of the Revolution. Manifest Destiny! (What was the argument again?) > No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them. This is like a five-year-old saying, "I don't like your stupid face, so I'm not gonna' look at it." Reading your sentence, I envisage the voice of a spoiled toddler. > So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which > newsreader I should use? How arrogant! Your arrogance toward the community and ignorance of fundamental, purposeful guidelines is proof of how sanctimonious you truly are. Besides, since you are still using PHP 4.4.9 on your server, it's obvious that you don't like - and/or are afraid of - change, so no one is trying to tell you what software to use. Anyway, since we're on the subject, while I have no interest in ever using RADICORE, I may be able to convince someone else to use it for free. Wait, I would have to pay for a commercial? That's a stupid rule, I'm just going to take it for free anyway, and damn what you say about it. -- daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/ Check out our great hosting and dedicated server deals at http://twitter.com/pilotpig -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
A quick search on Google indicates this argument has been active in various forums for over ten years, so I don't expect it to be resolved here. While ego is the most apparent motivator in these discussions I suspect, but have no way to confirm, that the two camps are divided by how their [email|news] client posts by default. GroupWise was the first significant email client I am aware of that top posted replies. Since that was the competitive target Outlook was created to eliminate, Outlook also top posted by default. But prior to the Office 2003 release it could still be configured to both bottom post and automatically insert the line prefixes for attribution. At the office I have to use Outlook. I hate it. Not only do I have to hand edit every message to construct the replay, there are many other problems that make it totally unsuitable for intelligent users. Unfortunately, that description fits far too few of the actual users. Bob McConnell A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message news:68de37340907090705y5b095f8cy68ba0d416b045...@mail.gmail.com... >> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people >> just >> don't care about. >> >> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which >> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair >> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments >> about >> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't >> matter, >> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it. > > And it's not just as small minded (I'm not agreeing with you, by the > way) to assume that your point is the only valid point in the > discussion? I never said that my point is the *only* valid point, just that it is a valid point. I don't complain about other people and their bottom posting (which I consider to be a bit anal, if you get the pun!) so stop trying to force me to conform to your petty rules. > Nor is it just as small minded to systematically attack > someone, and the community they take part in, because they have the > audacity to disagree with you? I am not attacking, I am defending. There is a slight difference. >> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go >> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule. > > It's obviously not inconsequential, as you're making such a fuss about > it. If it's so inconsequential, why not bottom post and be done with > it? If it's so inconsequential then stop complaining about it. >> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be >> bothered >> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet >> Nazi >> says so. >> > > Congratulations, rule-abiding denizens of php-general, we're now all > Nazis! I'm not saying that every person who reads this newsgroup is a Nazi, only those who take great delight in dictating how people should use *their* newsgroup. > Way to invoke Godwin, by the way, it clearly always wins these > internet argu-debates and doesn't make you look like a loon at all. > I'm going to take this opportunity to jump on the "no more respect" > bandwagon. > >> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which >> newsreader I should use? How arrogant! > > "I don't like your rules, rules that existed before I got here and > will exist after I leave and are agreed on by the community, so I'll > not follow them!" is one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen on > this list. He was making a suggestion, ffs, and you just want to be > an ass and take everything personally. You're making an entire > mountain range out of the proverbial molehill. It is *you* who are making a mountain out of the no-top-posting molehill. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
>-Original Message- >From: Bob McConnell [mailto:r...@cbord.com] >Sent: 09 July 2009 15:38 >To: php-general@lists.php.net >Subject: RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies) > [snip] > >Bob McConnell > >A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. >Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? >A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. >Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >A: Top-posting. >Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? > I've been reading this agog - really, how old are we here? But I have to say that Bob's signature was absolutely spot on. It even caught me out until I realised its purpose. Case in point. I have to wonder how this conversation will look in the various archives when a future PHP coder goes looking for a nice, friendly place to seek knowledge and guidance. PS: I also have to wonder how the attitude of "I don't like that rule, so I didn't follow it" (not an exact quote) will go over when presented to a police officer? J -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"Bastien Koert" wrote in message news:d7b6cab70907090705i1575fe0ft21a2cc82c992b...@mail.gmail.com... > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Tony > Marston wrote: >> >> "Bastien Koert" wrote in message >> news:d7b6cab70907090623s6b37641dt90a564f1d80fe...@mail.gmail.com... >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony >> Marston wrote: >>> >>> "Stuart" wrote in message >>> news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com... 2009/7/9 Tony Marston : The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if someone put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it didn't really matter. Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded person you are. > I reckon it's the same with > the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy > and selfish way to "contribute" to the list, That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good enough. >>> Tony, >>> >>> The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling. >> >> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people >> just >> don't care about. >> >> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which >> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair >> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments >> about >> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't >> matter, >> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it. >> >>> Daniel is >>> a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because >>> of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with >>> this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make >>> valuable contributions to the PHP community. >> >> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go >> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule. >> >>> Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to >>> view a standard thread in the list. >> >> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be >> bothered >> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet >> Nazi >> says so. >> >>> We don't have to like it, but that >>> is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are >>> not sensible to any specific point of view. >> >> No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them. >> >>> I have found that moving >>> to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail >>> displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as >>> they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try >>> using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why >>> I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that >>> you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring. >> >> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which >> newsreader I should use? How arrogant! >> > > No, Tony, not dictating at all. Merely sharing my experience. It may > or may not work for you, but that is for you to decide. I've decided. It doesn't work for me. End of story. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
At 9:39 AM +0100 7/9/09, Tony Marston wrote: -snip- (Nothing important) While you don't have any regard for "rules", we do. We simply ask that the rules be followed for reasons that are not without foundation and rules that are customary for list such as this. Your juvenile statement of: "No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them." Convinces me that you are either a child or a troll. It certainly does not support your claim that you are a 30 year professional. In any case, you are a waste of time -- welcome to my kill file. tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies) WOT
[snip] I've decided. It doesn't work for me. End of story. [/snip] This has become way off topic (call me a Nazi if you will :)) and has not, until now, been appropriately marked in the subject line. Mr. Marston has posted here for a long time and has always had a burr up his butt about rules. Several folks over the years have been given grief about top-posting, snipping, off-topic posts, ad infinitum. Tony, if it doesn't work for you that is fine, your responses may end up in /dev/null/ of several of those here reducing your odds for getting worthwhile responses. There is an accepted method for usenet style lists that have been in place (and POSTED in numerous locations for all to see) since the dawn of said lists. It is precisely why web forums bottom post for you, we all read from top to bottom more easily. Additionally there is a well respected and humorous web site dedicated to asking smart questions that most everyone here has read or been directed to at one time or another. If those rules are inconsequential to you I think you will find your responses to be more and more inconsequential to others. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies) WOT
[snip] No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them. [/snip] Shall I point out the irony here? http://www.tonymarston.net/aboutme/experiences.html in which you post a truckload of rules. And this which is posted among your Thoughts & Words Nobody trips over mountains. It is the small pebble that causes you to stumble. Pass all the pebbles in your path and you will find that you have crossed the mountain. -- Traditional proverb As well as Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly reason, But for those who can, rules become nothing more than guidelines, And live their lives governed not by rules but by reason. -- James McGuigan -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"Daniel Brown" wrote in message news:ab5568160907090729j4c2cc67esff2823dcb493d...@mail.gmail.com... > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 09:54, Tony Marston > wrote: >> >> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people >> just >> don't care about. > >Point #1: You're obviously wrong, as this thread has already > received more replies than most on-topic, PHP-centric threads. > >> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which >> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair >> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments >> about >> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't >> matter, >> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it. > > Point #2: When attempting to prove your case, do your best to > keep your facts and players straight --- you did not call me either of > these things; you placed your unnecessary opinion of such on Stuart. > And while that really doesn't sit well with me, it's just becoming > more and more evident that you, like many others in the past, will > simply wind up being ignored by the majority of the list, save for > folks who don't know or don't care about your lack of respect for > them. I have no respect for anyone who wastes time in trying to force others to obey their petty rules. >> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go >> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule. > >Had I been a hippie as well, I might just be inclined to agree > with you. So if we're throwing opinions around, let mine ring loud > and clear: thank God I'm not. Besides, I couldn't have pulled off the > bellbottom look, and in all my years, I still can't grow a half-decent > beard (which means that joining al-Qaeda may be out of my future as > well darn). > >> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be >> bothered >> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet >> Nazi >> says so. > >You change the topic for each newsgroup, don't you? And you do it > out of respect for the context of that particular group. You wouldn't > (well, maybe *you* would) ask a question about a carburetor on a > mailing list for expectant mothers, which makes sense. Now you're being silly. > Following a simple rule by not top-posting makes sense as well, > which has been outlined already. The whole point about this particlar rule is that it has no purpose other than to force everybody to conform to somebody's idea of perfection. Who gave this person the right to make such rules?. Top posting has existed for ages, and a lot of people don't care about it one way or the other. > Your greatest failure in this argument, Tony, is > not being able to articulate your proof as to *why* it's a stupid > rule. It's stupid because there is no valid reason as to why top posting is *bad*. It has existed on the internet ever since there was an internet, so for someone to stand up and say "I don't like this, so I'll make a rule agains it" it just arrogance on their part. I'm not saying that everyone should top post, or bottom post, or middle post, or even sideways post. It simply doesn't matter. > All I've been able to ascertain to date is that you (ALWAYS) > have an opinion as to why the Establishment is a Bad Thing[tm], and > how The Man will never be able to keep you down. Fight the power, > Marston. Spread the word of the Revolution. Manifest Destiny! (What > was the argument again?) It is my God-given right to question anything and everything, especially any rule made by mortal man. If you don't like it when I have the audacity to question >> No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them. > >This is like a five-year-old saying, "I don't like your stupid > face, so I'm not gonna' look at it." Reading your sentence, I > envisage the voice of a spoiled toddler. > >> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which >> newsreader I should use? How arrogant! > > Your arrogance toward the community and ignorance of fundamental, > purposeful guidelines I'm not trying to impose my will on the community, I'm just refusing to bow to *your* will. If they are truly "guidelines" and not "rules" then stop trying to force them down my throat. I don't tell you to stop with your anal bottom posting, so stop telling me to stop with my traditional top posting. > is proof of how sanctimonious you truly are. Now who's name calling? > Besides, since you are still using PHP 4.4.9 on your server, it's > obvious that you don't like - and/or are afraid of - change, so no one > is trying to tell you what software to use. Both of my servers use PHP 5.2.9, and I modified my code to run under PHP as soon as it was available. My code still runs under both PHP 4 and 5. >Anyway, since we're on the subject, while I have no interest i
[PHP] Re: SESSION variables: How much is too much?
At 7:30 PM -0400 7/8/09, D.M.Jackson wrote: Thanks guys. I was just wondering if it was common practice to pass all those variables in the SESSION object or if I was following a bad example because it was the first time that I had seen so many variables passed this way. If this is the typical way of handling this in php then I don't have a problem with it, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't getting off to a bad start and picking up bad habits while learning php. Thanks, Mark Mark: As a personal choice, I try to reduce the number of variables I carry in sessions as much as possible. To me sessions are similar to Globals and Globals create an environment that is generally not conducive to writing self-contained and reusable code. Typically when I'm dealing with many variables, the variables are usually contained in a database. If this is the case, then I only pass the id of the record in a session and allow the page to open the database to retrieve the variables it needs. I have found that the more session variables you pass, the more complicated the code. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:57, Tony Marston wrote: > > Violating a license agreement is against the law, top posting is not. Laws are rules set forth by mortal man. I have the right by your own word to choose not to obey this particular one. Your arguments hold no water, your experience has taught you nothing, and your abilities to perform under pressure when facts are pointed out against you have failed you. From this point forward, you don't even have the same respect from me as I would give to a rabid animal, and while you may not care - nor am I inclined to think or be concerned that you might or might not - I am satisfied in knowing that I'm not the only one who thinks you, sir, are not worth the time spent to think upon. Best of luck in anything you may hope to have success, including learning to persuasively debate a point. -- daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/ Check out our great hosting and dedicated server deals at http://twitter.com/pilotpig -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 16:57 +0100, Tony Marston wrote: > It's stupid because there is no valid reason as to why top posting is > *bad*. > It has existed on the internet ever since there was an internet, so > for > someone to stand up and say "I don't like this, so I'll make a rule > agains > it" it just arrogance on their part. Tony, I believe I (among others) mentioned a perfectly valid reason for *not* top-posting. In-case you forgot, I'll go through it again: This mailing list is ingested (afaik) in three main ways by people: 1. One email per message made to the list 2. Daily email digests 3. Web-based list archives Now, it might not make too much difference where the posts are if you are reading the list by the first means. Yeah, it's annoying seeing emails that are a mix of top and bottom-posting, but it can be dealt with. The second way of reading through the list groups together bunches of the messages, which is difficult to read if the posting is a mix of top and bottom. The web-based content is even more difficult to follow if the posting types mix. This list has always used bottom-posting as a convention, because if everyone sticks to it, the whole thing is made easier to read by both members and guests reading the list in their browsers. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned escalators. The convention in the UK is to stand on the right, and walk on the left. It's different in the US. Would you try and have an argument with someone on an escalator because s/he thought you were on the wrong side because you're used to using a particular side and can't be bothered to go by their conventions? More and more as you post I find this is actually a likely scenario, but I'm willing to accept you might not. The thing is, both these things are general conventions, put in place to benefit others, which hardly put you out of your way (as I mentioned yesterday, it can be done in 1-2 seconds) Please can you not just keep to the convention used on this list? The list is not here solely for your benefit, but that of others too. People often come here knowing little of PHP, and making their lives more difficult by having threads that follow no logical convention is just rude and inconsiderate. Thanks Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
Tony Marston wrote: I have no respect for anyone who wastes time in trying to force others to obey their petty rules. ... The whole point about this particlar rule is that it has no purpose other than to force everybody to conform to somebody's idea of perfection. You've been told more than twice, it isn't an arbitrary rule. It isn't a petty rule. It isn't about perfection. It's about clarity. So that the threaded archives are intelligible instead of jumbled. So that the post-by-post emails properly read from top to bottom. It's also about courtesy, not dropping dingleberries dozens or scores of lines long (and some of you others could stand to snip the extraneous even though you do properly bottom-post). Like has been said: if you don't play by the playground rules, don't be surprised if the other kids don't want to play with you. SL -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
> -Original Message- > From: Ashley Sheridan [mailto:a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:07 PM > To: Tony Marston > Cc: php-general@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with > cookies) > > On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 16:57 +0100, Tony Marston wrote: > > It's stupid because there is no valid reason as to why top posting is > > *bad*. > > It has existed on the internet ever since there was an internet, so > > for > > someone to stand up and say "I don't like this, so I'll make a rule > > agains > > it" it just arrogance on their part. > > Tony, I believe I (among others) mentioned a perfectly valid reason for > *not* top-posting. > > In-case you forgot, I'll go through it again: > > This mailing list is ingested (afaik) in three main ways by people: > > 1. One email per message made to the list > 2. Daily email digests > 3. Web-based list archives > > Now, it might not make too much difference where the posts are if you > are reading the list by the first means. Yeah, it's annoying seeing > emails that are a mix of top and bottom-posting, but it can be dealt > with. > > The second way of reading through the list groups together bunches of > the messages, which is difficult to read if the posting is a mix of top > and bottom. > > The web-based content is even more difficult to follow if the posting > types mix. > > This list has always used bottom-posting as a convention, because if > everyone sticks to it, the whole thing is made easier to read by both > members and guests reading the list in their browsers. > > Someone earlier in the thread mentioned escalators. The convention in > the UK is to stand on the right, and walk on the left. It's different > in > the US. Would you try and have an argument with someone on an escalator > because s/he thought you were on the wrong side because you're used to > using a particular side and can't be bothered to go by their > conventions? More and more as you post I find this is actually a likely > scenario, but I'm willing to accept you might not. The thing is, both > these things are general conventions, put in place to benefit others, > which hardly put you out of your way (as I mentioned yesterday, it can > be done in 1-2 seconds) > > Please can you not just keep to the convention used on this list? The > list is not here solely for your benefit, but that of others too. > People > often come here knowing little of PHP, and making their lives more > difficult by having threads that follow no logical convention is just > rude and inconsiderate. > > Thanks > Ash > www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature database 4229 (20090709) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > Having just come in to the particular thread, I actually have work that keeps me away from here, I'm wondering why this is worth the energy and time I have seen wasted on this subject. Seems to me everyone needs to take a deep breath and a step back. As far as anyone going against convention, seems to me that people who think outside the box, go against convention, break the rules, whatever are the ones who keep life interesting and occasionally help us find something new. I would hate to live in a real life "Stepford Wives" existence. [Marc Hall - HallMarc Websites - http://www.hallmarcwebsites.com 610.446.3346] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"Ashley Sheridan" wrote in message news:1247162816.3514.17.ca...@localhost.localdomain... > On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 16:57 +0100, Tony Marston wrote: >> It's stupid because there is no valid reason as to why top posting is >> *bad*. >> It has existed on the internet ever since there was an internet, so >> for >> someone to stand up and say "I don't like this, so I'll make a rule >> agains >> it" it just arrogance on their part. > > Tony, I believe I (among others) mentioned a perfectly valid reason for > *not* top-posting. > > In-case you forgot, I'll go through it again: > > This mailing list is ingested (afaik) in three main ways by people: > > 1. One email per message made to the list > 2. Daily email digests > 3. Web-based list archives You may think they are valid reasons, but I do not. When I first started to post in newsgroups top posting was not only allowed, it was encouraged, and no-one complained. This went on for years, then all of a sudden someone decided that top posting was bad, and made a rule against it. Why should I change the habits of years just because you say so? Whether I post at the top or the bottom DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. It is just another religious war. I think bottom posting is bad because I have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the post in order to read the response, whereas if its at the top I can read it without scrolling. > Now, it might not make too much difference where the posts are if you > are reading the list by the first means. Yeah, it's annoying seeing > emails that are a mix of top and bottom-posting, but it can be dealt > with. > > The second way of reading through the list groups together bunches of > the messages, which is difficult to read if the posting is a mix of top > and bottom. > > The web-based content is even more difficult to follow if the posting > types mix. The fact that there are many different ways of reading newsroups which favour either top or bottom posting just adds to the chaos. My newsreader favours top posting, so that's what I'll stick to. > This list has always used bottom-posting as a convention, because if > everyone sticks to it, the whole thing is made easier to read by both > members and guests reading the list in their browsers. Different newsgroups have different conventions, and I just can't be bothered to switch from one to the other just to satisfy a petty whim. > Someone earlier in the thread mentioned escalators. And I have already pointed out that this was a false analogy. If I stand on the wrong side of the escalator I will block other people, but if I top post I block nobody. Some people may notice I've posted at the top, some may not. Some may think it's bad, some may not. But wherever I post it does not stop them from reading what I wrote. > The convention in > the UK is to stand on the right, and walk on the left. It's different in > the US. Would you try and have an argument with someone on an escalator > because s/he thought you were on the wrong side because you're used to > using a particular side and can't be bothered to go by their > conventions? More and more as you post I find this is actually a likely > scenario, but I'm willing to accept you might not. The thing is, both > these things are general conventions, put in place to benefit others, > which hardly put you out of your way (as I mentioned yesterday, it can > be done in 1-2 seconds) > > Please can you not just keep to the convention used on this list? The > list is not here solely for your benefit, but that of others too. People > often come here knowing little of PHP, and making their lives more > difficult by having threads that follow no logical convention is just > rude and inconsiderate. Top posting does not make life more difficult, it does not make the post unreadable. It is a minor detail of no great consequence, so stop trying to make a federal case out of it. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
From: HallMarc Websites > > Having just come in to the particular thread, I actually have work that > keeps me away from here, I'm wondering why this is worth the energy and time > I have seen wasted on this subject. Seems to me everyone needs to take a > deep breath and a step back. As far as anyone going against convention, > seems to me that people who think outside the box, go against convention, > break the rules, whatever are the ones who keep life interesting and > occasionally help us find something new. I would hate to live in a real life > "Stepford Wives" existence. Actually, I found it quite amusing to watch Tony paint himself into a corner and try to defend his indefensible position. He reminds me of a number of individuals, and not a few institutions, whose attitude is "I've already made up my mind, don't try to confuse me with facts." Plus, it has been a timely and welcome diversion from other more pressing issues. Who needs the Comedy channel when we have this? It will be even more interesting to see if anyone on this list pays any attention to him in the future. Bob McConnell -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
At 2:22 PM -0400 7/9/09, HallMarc Websites wrote: As far as anyone going against convention, seems to me that people who think outside the box, go against convention, break the rules, whatever are the ones who keep life interesting and occasionally help us find something new. I would hate to live in a real life "Stepford Wives" existence. [Marc Hall - HallMarc Websites - http://www.hallmarcwebsites.com 610.446.3346] Marc: True, one of the things that makes life interesting are those who think outside "the box", but for some of us "the box" is a bit less obvious and requires more thought. When someone wants to argue a point, the point should be worth arguing. This argument is akin to saying "I don't like calling today 'Thursday' -- I think that's stupid! So, I'll call it 'MyDay' instead". While that would certainly be thinking outside "the box", it would also not be worth debating. I wish my life was so simple that I could raise issue with things like this, but my life requires more cerebral windmills to tilt. One of the things I've learned in my over 60 years, is to pick the battles that are worth fighting and let other contentions pass. In the wise, beyond their years, words of the Beatles "Let it be." Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
At 2:38 PM -0400 7/9/09, Bob McConnell wrote: It will be even more interesting to see if anyone on this list pays any attention to him in the future. Bob McConnell Bob: You won't have to wonder about me. I've already set email filters to trash any incoming from him. A *few* on this list don't appreciate is that there are many of us who donate our time freely in an attempt to help others. We do this without any compensation nor profitable credit. We all come from various skill levels, diverse backgrounds, and each usually provide an unique solution and perspective to the problem presented. In short, what we have to say matters. What I offer is pretty basic as compared to the truly great ones on this list (i.e., Daniel, Stuart, Rob, et all). I feel privileged that my humble offerings are even permitted, but I think my contribution is to answer the more obvious questions thereby freeing the more knowledgeable to answer the more difficult ones. However, when I see a debate over such minor points, I can't help but note the waste of time and talent and thus the reason for my post. I just hope that the other contributors on this list fully understand the value of their contribution and spend their time and talents where they are appreciated and not waste them on such nonsense. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
Hi all I haven't read any post from here. I want to read PHP threads. is this going somewhere? I think not. On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:13 PM, tedd wrote: > At 2:38 PM -0400 7/9/09, Bob McConnell wrote: >> >> It will be even more interesting to see if anyone on this list pays any >> attention to him in the future. >> >> Bob McConnell > > Bob: > > You won't have to wonder about me. I've already set email filters to trash > any incoming from him. > > A *few* on this list don't appreciate is that there are many of us who > donate our time freely in an attempt to help others. We do this without any > compensation nor profitable credit. We all come from various skill levels, > diverse backgrounds, and each usually provide an unique solution and > perspective to the problem presented. In short, what we have to say matters. > > What I offer is pretty basic as compared to the truly great ones on this > list (i.e., Daniel, Stuart, Rob, et all). I feel privileged that my humble > offerings are even permitted, but I think my contribution is to answer the > more obvious questions thereby freeing the more knowledgeable to answer the > more difficult ones. > > However, when I see a debate over such minor points, I can't help but note > the waste of time and talent and thus the reason for my post. I just hope > that the other contributors on this list fully understand the value of their > contribution and spend their time and talents where they are appreciated and > not waste them on such nonsense. > > Cheers, > > tedd > > -- > --- > http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Martin Scotta -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
""Bob McConnell"" wrote in message news:ff8482a96323694490c194babeac24a0049ad...@email.cbord.com... From: HallMarc Websites >> >> Having just come in to the particular thread, I actually have work that >> keeps me away from here, I'm wondering why this is worth the energy and time >> I have seen wasted on this subject. Seems to me everyone needs to take a >> deep breath and a step back. As far as anyone going against convention, >> seems to me that people who think outside the box, go against convention, >> break the rules, whatever are the ones who keep life interesting and >> occasionally help us find something new. I would hate to live in a real life >> "Stepford Wives" existence. > Actually, I found it quite amusing to watch Tony paint himself into a > corner and try to defend his indefensible position. Top posting is not indefensible as it has been used in other newsgroups without problems for over a decade. It wasn't wrong then, so why is it wrong now? > He reminds me of a > number of individuals, and not a few institutions, whose attitude is > "I've already made up my mind, don't try to confuse me with facts." The "fact" is that some people care about top posting while others do not. Some people are passionately against it while others couldn't give a toss. I personally don't give a toss, but I do see red when some jumped up pipsqueak tries to force me to conform to his vision of what is right and wrong. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org > Plus, it has been a timely and welcome diversion from other more > pressing issues. Who needs the Comedy channel when we have this? > > It will be even more interesting to see if anyone on this list pays any > attention to him in the future. > > Bob McConnell -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"tedd" wrote in message news:p06240800c67be78e3...@[192.168.1.101]... > At 2:22 PM -0400 7/9/09, HallMarc Websites wrote: >> As far as anyone going against convention, >>seems to me that people who think outside the box, go against convention, >>break the rules, whatever are the ones who keep life interesting and >>occasionally help us find something new. I would hate to live in a real >>life >>"Stepford Wives" existence. >> >>[Marc Hall - HallMarc Websites - http://www.hallmarcwebsites.com >>610.446.3346] > > > Marc: > > True, one of the things that makes life interesting are those who think > outside "the box", but for some of us "the box" is a bit less obvious and > requires more thought. > > When someone wants to argue a point, the point should be worth arguing. > This argument is akin to saying "I don't like calling today 'Thursday' -- > I think that's stupid! So, I'll call it 'MyDay' instead". While that would > certainly be thinking outside "the box", it would also not be worth > debating. Yet another fatuous argument. "Thursday" has never been called "Myday", so I would never propose such a thing. Top posting is different for the simple reason that it existed in other newsgroups long before this group started, and I object to being forced to change my posting methods on nothing more than a whim. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org > I wish my life was so simple that I could raise issue with things like > this, but my life requires more cerebral windmills to tilt. > > One of the things I've learned in my over 60 years, is to pick the battles > that are worth fighting and let other contentions pass. In the wise, > beyond their years, words of the Beatles "Let it be." > > Cheers, > > tedd > -- > --- > http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thursday 09 July 2009 20:50:59 Tony Marston wrote: > ""Bob McConnell"" wrote in message > news:ff8482a96323694490c194babeac24a0049ad...@email.cbord.com... > From: HallMarc Websites > > >> Having just come in to the particular thread, I actually have work > > that > > >> keeps me away from here, I'm wondering why this is worth the energy > > and time > > >> I have seen wasted on this subject. Seems to me everyone needs to take > > a > > >> deep breath and a step back. As far as anyone going against > > convention, > > >> seems to me that people who think outside the box, go against > > convention, > > >> break the rules, whatever are the ones who keep life interesting and > >> occasionally help us find something new. I would hate to live in a > > real life > > >> "Stepford Wives" existence. > > > > Actually, I found it quite amusing to watch Tony paint himself into a > > corner and try to defend his indefensible position. > > Top posting is not indefensible as it has been used in other newsgroups > without problems for over a decade. It wasn't wrong then, so why is it > wrong now? > > > He reminds me of a > > number of individuals, and not a few institutions, whose attitude is > > "I've already made up my mind, don't try to confuse me with facts." > > The "fact" is that some people care about top posting while others do not. > Some people are passionately against it while others couldn't give a toss. > I personally don't give a toss, but I do see red when some jumped up > pipsqueak tries to force me to conform to his vision of what is right and > wrong. > > -- > Tony Marston > http://www.tonymarston.net > http://www.radicore.org > > > Plus, it has been a timely and welcome diversion from other more > > pressing issues. Who needs the Comedy channel when we have this? > > > > It will be even more interesting to see if anyone on this list pays any > > attention to him in the future. > > > > Bob McConnell It's not a matter of "it was OK then, why not now", but a matter of "it was OK *there* but not *here*" very different I think you'll find. It's just standard social protocol on the Internet to go with the rules of the area you're in. If the rules of the list say no top-posting, why do you have to go against them. They are there for a reason, but you seem to blatantly ignore anyone who mentions the reasons, and latch on to things you feel you can argue against. Also, I'd hardly call anyone here a jumped-up pipsqueak just because we aren't too old to go by new rules. The only reason I'm bringing your age into this is because you keep mentioning your last "30 years" online on mailing lists. There are older members than you on the list, and yet they find no problem following the rules that make this list easy for everyone to use. -- Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"Still Learnin'" wrote in message news:4a5641d1.9040...@gmail.com... > Tony Marston wrote: > >> I have no respect for anyone who wastes time in trying to force others to >> obey their petty rules. > > ... >> The whole point about this particlar rule is that it has no purpose other >> than to force everybody to conform to somebody's idea of perfection. > > You've been told more than twice, it isn't an arbitrary rule. It isn't > a petty rule. It isn't about perfection. It is arbitrary. It is petty. It is about someone's idea of perfection. > It's about clarity. So that the threaded archives are intelligible > instead of jumbled. So that the post-by-post emails properly read from > top to bottom. That's why other newsgroups allow top posting because the response in each post is at the top, where the newsreader starts, so you don't have to scroll over the text of the previous post to get to the important stuff. If a thread contained 30 posts would you really want the text of all 30 contained in the same message? How difficult would it be to separate one message from another? > It's also about courtesy, not dropping dingleberries dozens or scores > of lines long (and some of you others could stand to snip the extraneous > even though you do properly bottom-post). So what are the rules about snipping then? -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org > Like has been said: if you don't play by the playground rules, don't > be surprised if the other kids don't want to play with you. > > SL > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
Tony Marston wrote: You've been told more than twice, it isn't an arbitrary rule. It isn't a petty rule. It isn't about perfection. It is arbitrary. It is petty. It is about someone's idea of perfection. One of us clearly manifests a reality gap. How many people do you have siding with your position, on this list? It's about clarity. So that the threaded archives are intelligible instead of jumbled. So that the post-by-post emails properly read from top to bottom. That's why other newsgroups allow top posting because the response in each post is at the top, where the newsreader starts, so you don't have to scroll over the text of the previous post to get to the important stuff. This is not a newsgroup. It is an email list that archives emails on the php.net web site, and has a newsgroup subscribed. If a thread contained 30 posts would you really want the text of all 30 contained in the same message? How difficult would it be to separate one message from another? What broken program (or script) puts the text of 30 posts into the same post? You seem to be grasping at straws. It's also about courtesy, not dropping dingleberries dozens or scores of lines long (and some of you others could stand to snip the extraneous even though you do properly bottom-post). So what are the rules about snipping then? You're the 30-year professional, figure them out. I'm Still Learnin' ps- bye. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
My sincerest apologies. I have been a complete jackass this entire time and every single one of you has been correct. From this point forward I vow to keep my God damned mouth shut unless spoken to. You see, I have been struggling with defining my sexual identity and trying to come to terms with my preference toward glittery and sparkly shoes. Unfortunately my choice of stockings does not bode well for this preference. But I will be damned if the rules of fashion will dictate what does and does not go well together. So I am off to fight a different and winnable battle. I love you all so very much. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Tony Marston wrote: > > > My sincerest apologies. I have been a complete jackass this entire > time and every single one of you has been correct. From this point > forward I vow to keep my God damned mouth shut unless spoken to. > > You see, I have been struggling with defining my sexual identity > and trying to come to terms with my preference toward glittery and > sparkly shoes. Unfortunately my choice of stockings does not bode Fishnet?? > well for this preference. But I will be damned if the rules of > fashion will dictate what does and does not go well together. > > So I am off to fight a different and winnable battle. > > I love you all so very much. > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
At 9:03 PM +0100 7/9/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote: Also, I'd hardly call anyone here a jumped-up pipsqueak just because we aren't too old to go by new rules. The only reason I'm bringing your age into this is because you keep mentioning your last "30 years" online on mailing lists. There are older members than you on the list, and yet they find no problem following the rules that make this list easy for everyone to use. -- Thanks, Ash So someone played the age card and that woke me up... Let's see -- the last 30 years on mailing lists? Okay I remember the last 30 years, I had here just a second ago. Ahhh, there they are -- 30 years would have taken it back to 1979, right? Subtract the nine, carry the one, three from ten -- yep 1979. In 1979, I was attending MSU working on my Masters when Magic Johnson lead the MSU team to the AACP championship, or something of that nature. Forgive me, I don't follow baseball. I had a classmate ask me about Magic Johnson and I said that I never saw him preform -- I thought he was a David Copperfield type. In any event, I was using an Apple ][ computer to write my thesis and that was unheard of at that time. In fact, the staff in the thesis office actually came out and marvelled at my thesis submission in original manuscript that did not contain any photocopies or even white-outs. Mine was the first original manuscript thesis ever submitted at MSU (or so they told me). So, that was before the common word processor. Now, do I remember email? No not really. As I understand it, email came about under ARPANET and converted to the Internet in the early 80's. So unless he has been doing email and participating on something other than what's known, I would have to say it's a bunch of bull. But what do I know -- I'm just an old fart who tries to follow the rules. Now back to sleep z. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 16:55, tedd wrote: > > Now, do I remember email? No not really. As I understand it, email came > about under ARPANET and converted to the Internet in the early 80's. So > unless he has been doing email and participating on something other than > what's known, I would have to say it's a bunch of bull. Actually, in Tony's defense, I don't think he ever said anything about being on mailing lists or using email for thirty years, only that he's been involved in computers and programming for that length of time. Which, much like yourself, is believable. -- daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/ Check out our great hosting and dedicated server deals at http://twitter.com/pilotpig -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 16:47, Bastien Koert wrote: >> >> My sincerest apologies. I have been a complete jackass this entire >> time and every single one of you has been correct. From this point >> forward I vow to keep my God damned mouth shut unless spoken to. Heh. Methinks there be trickery afoot, and it's best to ignore this rather than encourage it. Better to keep a nice, clean, above-the-belt fight. Pipsqueak out. -- daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/ Check out our great hosting and dedicated server deals at http://twitter.com/pilotpig -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] GD to IMAGEMAGICK
Hello. I have this code and the getFrame returns a GD truecolor image.
However, I want to convert to imagemagick after I get that frame from
ffmpeg.
Here's my code:
// GRAB A FRAME FROM THE VIDEO FOR A THUMB VIEW
$video = new ffmpeg_movie($data_temp, false);
$frame = $video->getFrame(90); //returns a ffmpeg_frame() object
$frame_full = $frame->toGDImage(); // Returns a truecolor GD image of the
frame.
// Here is where it fails so I'm assuming I need to convert the $frame_full
into something Imagick friendly. Any ideas? Or am I not returning any data
to the frame_full to process?
$frame_full = new Imagick($frame_full);
// get dimensions
$frame_height = $frame_full->getImageHeight();
$frame_width = $frame_full->getImageWidth();
ERROR:
Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'ImagickException' with message 'Can
not process empty Imagick object' in
/home/httpd/html/domain.com/public_html/upload/albums.php:214
Stack trace:
#0 /home/httpd/html/domain.com/public_html/upload/albums.php(214):
Imagick->getimageheight()
#1 /home/httpd/html/domain.com/public_html/upload/albums.php(26):
upload_content(Object(ADODB_mysql), '58669', '77', 'my videos', 'video')
#2 {main}
thrown in /home/httpd/html/domain.com/public_html/upload/albums.php
on line 214
Thanks for any help, T
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
This post did not come from me. The headers contain this: Received: from [74.54.247.2] ([74.54.247.2:59280] helo=mail.caracol-cream.com) Very funny. -- (the real) Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org ""(the fake) Tony Marston"" wrote in message news:e1mp00d-0005iz...@mail.caracol-cream.com... > > > My sincerest apologies. I have been a complete jackass this entire > time and every single one of you has been correct. From this point > forward I vow to keep my God damned mouth shut unless spoken to. > > You see, I have been struggling with defining my sexual identity > and trying to come to terms with my preference toward glittery and > sparkly shoes. Unfortunately my choice of stockings does not bode > well for this preference. But I will be damned if the rules of > fashion will dictate what does and does not go well together. > > So I am off to fight a different and winnable battle. > > I love you all so very much. > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
"Still Learnin'" wrote in message news:4a565c73.8090...@gmail.com... > Tony Marston wrote: > >>> You've been told more than twice, it isn't an arbitrary rule. It isn't >>> a petty rule. It isn't about perfection. >> >> It is arbitrary. It is petty. It is about someone's idea of perfection. > > One of us clearly manifests a reality gap. How many people do you > have siding with your position, on this list? > >>> It's about clarity. So that the threaded archives are intelligible >>> instead of jumbled. So that the post-by-post emails properly read from >>> top to bottom. >> >> That's why other newsgroups allow top posting because the response in >> each post is at the top, where the newsreader starts, so you don't have >> to scroll over the text of the previous post to get to the important >> stuff. > > This is not a newsgroup. It is an email list that archives emails > on the php.net web site, and has a newsgroup subscribed. It *is* a newsgroup because I can access it through my newsreader. I can recieve copies of posts in my email client, but I can only post using my newsreader. >> If a thread contained 30 posts would you really want the text of all 30 >> contained in the same message? How difficult would it be to separate one >> message from another? > > What broken program (or script) puts the text of 30 posts into the > same post? You seem to be grasping at straws. When you hit "reply" in your newsreader what happens? It creates a new post with the original message quoted in its entirety. Some newsreadrs then posiition the cursor at the top ready for your reply, while others position it at the bottom. If this happens 30 times then the last post contains copies of the all the previous 29 messages. >>> It's also about courtesy, not dropping dingleberries dozens or scores >>> of lines long (and some of you others could stand to snip the extraneous >>> even though you do properly bottom-post). >> >> So what are the rules about snipping then? > > You're the 30-year professional, figure them out. I'm Still Learnin' Why should I have to figure it out? Surely some little Hitler has created a rule so that the rest of us sheep don't have to think for ourselves? -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why??
The atmosphere is weird now so you all may think I am out there. . but this is a sincere question- (and not due to dumb oversight of my HTML code) I have a mysterious "f" character (Yes, just the letter " f " ) appearing in my HTML between these two seemingly benign HTMl tags: My source file literally has only this in it: ... ... but what i am getting in the browser is this (as seen in firebug): ... f ... The really weird thing is that when I view source in firefox (v. 3.0.11) (mac), I see only this: ... ... Note that there is no other in the file, so I know I am looking at the right place. I have no reason to think this is a PHP issue other than I have never seen anything like this and I am not doing anything other than very simple straightforward HTML and PHP. There is no PHP at that point in the file.. and no errors or problems where the PHP does lay, but what could be causing this? ??? Govinda govinda.webdnat...@gmail.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
On Thursday 09 July 2009 22:00:14 Daniel Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 16:47, Bastien Koert wrote: > >> My sincerest apologies. I have been a complete jackass this > >> entire time and every single one of you has been correct. From this > >> point forward I vow to keep my God damned mouth shut unless spoken to. > > Heh. Methinks there be trickery afoot, and it's best to ignore > this rather than encourage it. Better to keep a nice, clean, > above-the-belt fight. > > Pipsqueak out. > > -- > > daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net > http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/ > Check out our great hosting and dedicated server deals at > http://twitter.com/pilotpig Yeah, I thought so too. The headers don't match with his other emails, but really it was the apology which gave it away! -- Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why??
On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Govinda wrote: The atmosphere is weird now so you all may think I am out there. . but this is a sincere question- (and not due to dumb oversight of my HTML code) I have a mysterious "f" character (Yes, just the letter " f " ) appearing in my HTML between these two seemingly benign HTMl tags: My source file literally has only this in it: ... ... but what i am getting in the browser is this (as seen in firebug): ... f ... The really weird thing is that when I view source in firefox (v. 3.0.11) (mac), I see only this: ... ... Note that there is no other in the file, so I know I am looking at the right place. I have no reason to think this is a PHP issue other than I have never seen anything like this and I am not doing anything other than very simple straightforward HTML and PHP. There is no PHP at that point in the file.. and no errors or problems where the PHP does lay, but what could be causing this? ??? Govinda govinda.webdnat...@gmail.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Damn it, I hate it when things get f'd up. ;-) Bastien Sent from my iPod -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
> -Original Message- > From: tedd [mailto:tedd.sperl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:55 PM > To: php-general@lists.php.net; a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk > Subject: Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with > cookies) > > At 9:03 PM +0100 7/9/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > >Also, I'd hardly call anyone here a jumped-up pipsqueak just because > we aren't > >too old to go by new rules. The only reason I'm bringing your age into > this > >is because you keep mentioning your last "30 years" online on mailing > lists. > >There are older members than you on the list, and yet they find no > problem > >following the rules that make this list easy for everyone to use. > > > >-- > >Thanks, > >Ash > > > So someone played the age card and that woke me up... > > Let's see -- the last 30 years on mailing lists? > > Okay I remember the last 30 years, I had here just a second ago. > > Ahhh, there they are -- 30 years would have taken it back to 1979, > right? Subtract the nine, carry the one, three from ten -- yep 1979. > > In 1979, I was attending MSU working on my Masters when Magic Johnson > lead the MSU team to the AACP championship, or something of that > nature. Forgive me, I don't follow baseball. I had a classmate ask me > about Magic Johnson and I said that I never saw him preform -- I > thought he was a David Copperfield type. > > In any event, I was using an Apple ][ computer to write my thesis and > that was unheard of at that time. In fact, the staff in the thesis > office actually came out and marvelled at my thesis submission in > original manuscript that did not contain any photocopies or even > white-outs. Mine was the first original manuscript thesis ever > submitted at MSU (or so they told me). So, that was before the common > word processor. > > Now, do I remember email? No not really. As I understand it, email > came about under ARPANET and converted to the Internet in the early > 80's. So unless he has been doing email and participating on > something other than what's known, I would have to say it's a bunch > of bull. > > But what do I know -- I'm just an old fart who tries to follow the > rules. Now back to sleep z. > > Cheers, > > tedd > > -- > --- > http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com > I was whistling and wondering when someone would catch that obvious load of BS. And I'm running out of popcorn! [Marc Hall - HallMarc Websites - http://www.hallmarcwebsites.com 610.446.3346] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why??
> -Original Message- > From: Govinda [mailto:govinda.webdnat...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:51 PM > To: PHP-General List > Subject: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why?? > > The atmosphere is weird now so you all may think I am out there. . but > this is a sincere question- > (and not due to dumb oversight of my HTML code) > > I have a mysterious "f" character (Yes, just the letter " f " ) > appearing in my HTML between these two seemingly benign HTMl tags: > My source file literally has only this in it: > ... > > > ... > > > but what i am getting in the browser is this (as seen in firebug): > ... > >f > > ... > > > The really weird thing is that when I view source in firefox (v. > 3.0.11) (mac), I see only this: > ... > > > ... > > > Note that there is no other in the file, so I know I am > looking at the right place. > > I have no reason to think this is a PHP issue other than I have never > seen anything like this and I am not doing anything other than very > simple straightforward HTML and PHP. There is no PHP at that point in > the file.. and no errors or problems where the PHP does lay, but what > could be causing this? > > ??? > > > Govinda > govinda.webdnat...@gmail.com > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature database 4229 (20090709) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > Can you send me the link please. [Marc Hall - HallMarc Websites - http://www.hallmarcwebsites.com 610.446.3346] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Trying to complie a libphp5.so
Just tried to do so on php-5.2.8 and php-5.3.0 All I get is Build complete. Don't forget to run 'make test'. doctor.nl2k.ab.ca//usr/source/php-5.3.0$ make install Installing PHP SAPI module: apache2handler /var/www/build/instdso.sh SH_LIBTOOL='/var/www/build/libtool' libphp5.la /usr/contrib/libexec/apache /var/www/build/libtool --mode=install cp libphp5.la /usr/contrib/libexec/apache/ cp .libs/libphp5.lai /usr/contrib/libexec/apache/libphp5.la cp .libs/libphp5.a /usr/contrib/libexec/apache/libphp5.a chmod 644 /usr/contrib/libexec/apache/libphp5.a ranlib /usr/contrib/libexec/apache/libphp5.a libtool: install: warning: remember to run `libtool --finish /usr/source/php-5.3.0/libs' Warning! dlname not found in /usr/contrib/libexec/apache/libphp5.la. Assuming installing a .so rather than a libtool archive. chmod 755 /usr/contrib/libexec/apache/libphp5.so chmod: cannot access `/usr/contrib/libexec/apache/libphp5.so': No such file or directory apxs:Error: Command failed with rc=65536 . *** Error code 1 Where is my libphp5.so in the complie? -- Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
Tony Marston wrote: > There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST > obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to > this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called) > for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and each > group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or "standards"). > When moving to a new group the new rules will always be different, and will > sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this? Why do some groups > say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead of A"? Does it make a > difference? > > The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It > starts with some wise ass saying > (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules. > (2) There are no such things as bad rules. > (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then > choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one. > (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different. > (5) The rules must be obeyed without question. > (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot > change the rule. > > Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its > existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of heads, > so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this. > > Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for a > certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the rule > needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not > understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see that > it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how the > rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances. > > I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will > keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then so > be it. > > Yea Tony... I'm with you all the way. but... I think we're fighting a losing battle... I recall some confrontations with parking rule enforcers - why can't you park in an area that normally is forbidden but when you park there in a situation where obviously and with common sense you will not be obstructing anyone or anything? You can't win that and then we have gone so far boyond such needless intolerance and stupidity that I can no longer detect our little planet throught all the muddied rules & regulations one manifestation of utterly stupid and useless law, rule or whatever is the use of those little stickers on fruits and vegetables... you may know where the little thing comes from but the ways of contamination are so multitudinous that tracing the contamination is virtually impossible... did anyone ever find the person that laced those Tylenol pills so many years ago? ;-) -- Hervé Kempf: "Pour sauver la planète, sortez du capitalisme." - Phil Jourdan --- p...@ptahhotep.com http://www.ptahhotep.com http://www.chiccantine.com/andypantry.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why??
Govinda wrote: I have a mysterious "f" character (Yes, just the letter " f " ) appearing in my HTML between these two seemingly benign HTMl tags: On same computer, do a view source in other browsers too - IE, Chrome, Safari etc. F still there? There could be a FireFox addon module injecting that artifact during code fix-up phase. Run FF in safe mode and see if it's still there. -eric -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why??
Phpster wrote: > > > On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Govinda wrote: > >> The atmosphere is weird now so you all may think I am out there. . but >> this is a sincere question- >> (and not due to dumb oversight of my HTML code) >> >> I have a mysterious "f" character (Yes, just the letter " f " ) >> appearing in my HTML between these two seemingly benign HTMl tags: >> My source file literally has only this in it: >> ... >> >> >> ... >> >> >> but what i am getting in the browser is this (as seen in firebug): >> ... >> >> f >> >> ... >> >> >> The really weird thing is that when I view source in firefox >> (v.3.0.11) (mac), I see only this: >> ... >> >> >> ... >> >> >> Note that there is no other in the file, so I know I am >> looking at the right place. >> >> I have no reason to think this is a PHP issue other than I have never >> seen anything like this and I am not doing anything other than very >> simple straightforward HTML and PHP. There is no PHP at that point in >> the file.. and no errors or problems where the PHP does lay, but what >> could be causing this? >> >> ??? >> >> >> Govinda >> govinda.webdnat...@gmail.com >> >> >> -- >> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > > Damn it, I hate it when things get f'd up. ;-) > > Bastien > > Sent from my iPod > That's f'ing crazy! -- Thanks! -Shawn http://www.spidean.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why??
> -Original Message- > From: Eric Wood [mailto:e...@interplas.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:17 PM > To: php-general@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why?? > > Govinda wrote: > > > > I have a mysterious "f" character (Yes, just the letter " f " ) > > appearing in my HTML between these two seemingly benign HTMl tags: > > > On same computer, do a view source in other browsers too - IE, Chrome, > Safari etc. F still there? There could be a FireFox addon module > injecting that artifact during code fix-up phase. Run FF in safe mode > and see if it's still there. > > -eric > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature database 4229 (20090709) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > problem was solved, it was just a simple typo and sometimes all it takes is a fresh pair of eyes. The confusing part comes in when it prints to the screen and your mind looks in that area of the code and finds nothing because it actually somewhere else and because it is outside of a tag the browser applies the appropriate inherited rules, et viola, the character appears in what seems to be a strange place. [Marc Hall - HallMarc Websites - http://www.hallmarcwebsites.com 610.446.3346] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why??
problem was solved, it was just a simple typo and sometimes all it takes is a fresh pair of eyes. The confusing part comes in when it prints to the screen and your mind looks in that area of the code and finds nothing because it actually somewhere else and because it is outside of a tag the browser applies the appropriate inherited rules, et viola, the character appears in what seems to be a strange place. Yeah, and the stranger thing was that the source code that firebug was showing me was not the same as the browser's (FF) normal source... so I quickly jumped to the idea that something out of the ordinary was happening.. and since I am so new at PHP... the mind runs wild. Thanks to Marc for bothering to take a look, & seeing it. -G [Marc Hall - HallMarc Websites - http://www.hallmarcwebsites.com 610.446.3346]
Re: [PHP] mysterious " f " character appearing. Why??
HallMarc Websites wrote:
problem was solved, it was just a simple typo and sometimes all it takes is
a fresh pair of eyes. The confusing part comes in when it prints to the
screen and your mind looks in that area of the code and finds nothing
LOL - I wanted to display generated XML on screen.
Displaying it as a big long string doesn't work so well, so I passed it
through tidy just to get pretty indentation.
Tidy did a pretty could job, but for the life of me I couldn't figure
out how to do an xml fragment with tidy - it always headed head and body
tags (the config option for html in tidy is automatically disabled in
xml output mode)
Anyway - so after using a regex to get rid of the head and body tags,
there was excess indention - and I spent almost 20 minutes trying to
figure out why '/^\s{4}/','' was only working on the first line.
What I was seeing on screen in browser was multiline, but to php (and
thus preg_replace) it was still all one string, so ^ would only match once.
Sometimes it helps to take a break, watch a Stargate episode, and clear
your mind.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: SESSION variables: How much is too much?
Hi, OK, I did a count on the session.inc file and there appears to be 37 variables accessed through the $_SESSION object. By and large they all appear to be scalar variables that contain a counter or a path or a boolean. Nothing that looks like a big object. Mostly stuff like" MaxDisplayRecords, DefaultDisplayRecords, Theme, DefaultTheme, CustomerId, RealName, CustomerBranch, Module, UserStockLocation, PageSize, AccessLevel, AttemptsCounter, Language, PageSecurityToken, DatabaseName...etc. Initially, when you hit the index page the session.inc file is included. >From there, depending on what choices you make from the options displayed it assembles a page by calling the a php file that calls the database if needed, includes a header.inc file and a footer.inc file and builds the appropriate html for the body and of course, includes the session.inc file. My question is, assuming 37 variables of this type in the session.inc file, at what level of concurrent user access do you consider changing the way you do business here. Bare in mind that I don't comprehend a whole lot about server and database clustering and big enterprise big iron stuff like that. I'm just a guy trying to learn how to write decent php code that I don't have to be embarassed of when I shift gears in a new direction to add a marketable skill in my career development path. Thanks, Mark "Paul M Foster" wrote in message news:20090709010528.gx14...@quillandmouse.com... > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 06:55:24PM -0500, Shawn McKenzie wrote: > >> D.M.Jackson wrote: >> > Thanks guys. I was just wondering if it was common practice to pass >> > all >> > those variables in the SESSION object or if I was following a bad >> > example >> > because it was the first time that I had seen so many variables passed >> > this >> > way. If this is the typical way of handling this in php then I don't >> have a >> > problem with it, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't getting off >> > to a >> > bad start and picking up bad habits while learning php. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Mark >> >> Again, it depends upon whether you "need" those variables in the next >> page for example. Think of a wizard, where you fill some values in a >> form, click next, fill more values, click next, etc and then click >> finish. You may want to pass the values from each page to the next via >> the session and ultimately have them all available in the last page. >> There are others ways to do this, such as adding them as hidden inputs >> in the next pages, but I personally would use sessions. >> >> One other example might be user info, id, username, firstname, lastname, >> current access role etc. You may use these on every page, so once you >> retrieve them from the db, you can store them in the session. Any other >> info like email, age, register date whatever, you can retrieve only when >> needed. > > Just to provide a counterpoint to this, I would discourage using > $_SESSION for more than absolutely necessary. If I have a situation such > as Shawn mentions above, I pass values via hidden fields in the form. > Most of the forms I create are backed by a database, so mostly I capture > data from there. In addition, you can serialize data you wish to save > and store it in a database or hidden field, and then unserialize it upon > painting the next page. > > If I'm not mistaken, there's a limit to the data which can be stored in > a session variable. I don't want to mistakenly hit that limit and wonder > what happened. And besides, I just think $_SESSION should be reserved > for *special* cases. > > And, as mentioned before, it's worthwhile asking yourself if you > *really* need to remember a bunch of information from page to page. The > need to do so may well be a result of lazy programming habits. > > Paul > > -- > Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] DOMDocument saveHTML() configurable?
The $dom->saveHTML() function does a pretty good job of knowing what tags are not closed - IE it does , , , etc. correctly. Is there a way to add a tag without children to it's database? Specifically I'm talking about the new tag from HTML 5 that is being used to embed ogg/mp4 audio and video files. Put it in a dom document object and spit it out with saveHTML() and you get which is harmless but technically incorrect. I know html tidy allows you to define new childless nodes and sending the output through tidy will then fix it, but I can't seem to find a way to to it with DOMDocument so that you don't need to send it through tidy before sending to the client. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] HTTP headers and include()
Hey everyone, I've been hard at work on a new web application, and discovered something that I would never have seen coming. I was noticing that when I called session_start() after a few lines of includes, I was getting complaints because the HTTP headers had already been sent out. Then, after putting session_start() above the include lines, suddenly everything was working fine. The files that were included were nothing more than functions; there was no code executing that I could tell up to the point of the call to session_start(). I was just wondering if anybody on the list knows why HTTP headers were being sent out by my includes. I'm sure there's a good reason. I'm just very curious :) Thanks very much in advance. James -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] HTTP headers and include()
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:21 AM, James Colannino wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I've been hard at work on a new web application, and discovered > something that I would never have seen coming. I was noticing that when > I called session_start() after a few lines of includes, I was getting > complaints because the HTTP headers had already been sent out. Then, > after putting session_start() above the include lines, suddenly > everything was working fine. > > The files that were included were nothing more than functions; there was > no code executing that I could tell up to the point of the call to > session_start(). > > I was just wondering if anybody on the list knows why HTTP headers were > being sent out by my includes. I'm sure there's a good reason. I'm > just very curious :) > > Thanks very much in advance. > > James > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > HTTP headers are sent and finalized after the first bit of output. I had the same problem before and it turned out to be because I had a close tag "?>" at the end of a file followed by some whitespace. The solution was to remove the ?> from the end of all the files and I haven't closed an entire file since. Perhaps that might be it? --Eddie -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] HTTP headers and include()
James Colannino wrote: Hey everyone, I've been hard at work on a new web application, and discovered something that I would never have seen coming. I was noticing that when I called session_start() after a few lines of includes, I was getting complaints because the HTTP headers had already been sent out. Then, after putting session_start() above the include lines, suddenly everything was working fine. The files that were included were nothing more than functions; there was no code executing that I could tell up to the point of the call to session_start(). I was just wondering if anybody on the list knows why HTTP headers were being sent out by my includes. I'm sure there's a good reason. I'm just very curious :) Thanks very much in advance. James White space can cause this - make sure your code has top and ?> at the very bottom, or the white space may trigger the web server to send a header and the white space as data before the cookie for session_start() is sent. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
