On Monday, 2 May 2011 at 17:23, Tim Streater wrote:
On 02 May 2011 at 15:40, tedd wrote:
>
> > > At 2:48 PM +0100 5/2/11, Stuart Dallas wrote:
> > > Sent from my leaf blower
> >
> > Leaf blower?
> >
> > I suppose some day soon, we will send stuff from our watches. From a
> > leaf blower would
On 02 May 2011 at 15:40, tedd wrote:
>> At 2:48 PM +0100 5/2/11, Stuart Dallas wrote:
>> Sent from my leaf blower
>
> Leaf blower?
>
> I suppose some day soon, we will send stuff from our watches. From a
> leaf blower would be pushing technologies invasion into our personal
> lives a bit much --
At 2:48 PM +0100 5/2/11, Stuart Dallas wrote:
Sent from my leaf blower
Leaf blower?
I suppose some day soon, we will send stuff from our watches. From a
leaf blower would be pushing technologies invasion into our personal
lives a bit much -- but I guess that's your point.
Cheers,
tedd
--
I don't understand what you have against includes. Redirecting the browser as
tedd suggested will work but it's a waste of resources to bounce the request
off the client unless you have a good reason for doing so (eg. changing the URL
the browser is showing or preventing reloads htting the initi
Sorry - I responded directly to the responder - BECAUSE - I lost track of
who I was answering. That's what happens when people choose to repond to
the poster directly INSTEAD of JUST replying to the list.
Tedd gave me the 'header' directive and it works just as I imagined
something would do.
No includes. Period.
> To get "script 1 to begin" from script 2 based on a certain path...
>
> script2.php
> ---
> if ($path1)
> {
> // do stuff here
> include('script1.php');
> exit;
> }
> // otherwise do other stuff here
> ---
>
> -Stuart
>
> --
> Stuart Dallas
> 3ft9 Ltd
> http://3ft9.com/
>
>
On Monday, 2 May 2011 at 05:21, Jim Giner wrote:
Script 1 calls script 2. Script 2 has several paths in it which is how the
> user gets to interact with it. Once the final path has been taken (data
> gets written) I don't want to use script 2 any longer - I want script 1 to
> begin, by a call fr
At 9:17 PM -0400 5/1/11, Jim Giner wrote:
I have a large script that does a certain function for me. I have a second
script that gets called and does its thing and when I'm done with it I'd
like to pass control to the first script. I don't need this 'included' in
my second script - I just want
On Monday, 2 May 2011 at 02:44, Jim Giner wrote:
No - I don't want to include either one in the other one. They are separate
> things that interesect once. I really am just trying to do this separately
> as I said.
>
> script1
> work
> work
> work
> (done)
>
> script2
> do something
> user resp
No - I don't want to include either one in the other one. They are separate
things that interesect once. I really am just trying to do this separately
as I said.
script1
work
work
work
(done)
script2
do something
user response
do something (write data)
execute script 1
(done.
Script 2 doesn'
On Monday, 2 May 2011 at 02:17, Jim Giner wrote:
I have a large script that does a certain function for me. I have a second
> script that gets called and does its thing and when I'm done with it I'd
> like to pass control to the first script. I don't need this 'included' in
> my second script -
I have a large script that does a certain function for me. I have a second
script that gets called and does its thing and when I'm done with it I'd
like to pass control to the first script. I don't need this 'included' in
my second script - I just want to pass control to it and let it take ove
12 matches
Mail list logo
