Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38914
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain iamjochem.com from 194.109.193.121 cause and error)
Message-ID: <4877BC6B.5070001@iamjochem.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:02:51 +0200
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>
CC: Richard Krehbiel <richard.krehbiel@gmail.com>, 
 internals@lists.php.net
References: <19b0b5c00807100543o50773d26hb7f429e348991191@mail.gmail.com> <657EF460-CBD3-4A03-8B93-7E98C46C8C9B@pooteeweet.org>
In-Reply-To: <657EF460-CBD3-4A03-8B93-7E98C46C8C9B@pooteeweet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] persistent sockets need help
From: jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas)

Lukas Kahwe Smith schreef:
> 
> On 10.07.2008, at 14:43, Richard Krehbiel wrote:
> 
>> Here's the big part:  I was thinking that a semantic change to persistent
>> sockets might make it easier for scripts to work "correctly" without
>> bothering them too much.  The change is this:  If a script doesn't 
>> "fclose"
>> it's "pfsockopen"ed socket, it gets closed *for real* when the script 
>> ends.
>>
>> I suggest this because I think it would make scripts "just work" in the
>> presence of failures, even if the script coder doesn't completely 
>> understand
>> the principle; it makes the transaction boundaries "automatic".  The down
>> side is that, if a script forgets the fclose, things work but it doesn't
>> recycle sockets, it makes new ones all the time.
>>
>> The other down side is that for old scripts that never had an fclose in
>> them, they stop getting recycled pfsockets until the fclose is added.
>>
>> I'm going to do *something* about this myself, anyway.  I'd really 
>> like it
>> if a solution were adopted into the main code base.
> 
> 
> I think this might generally be a solution to make persistent 
> connections less error prone in PHP. This includes database extensions 
> as well. However it does strike me as something that should be done in a 
> major PHP version ..

would it not be less intrusive to offer a pfclose() in a combination with
something like use_pfclose()? where by any persistent handles opened after
a call to use_pfclose() would require a pfclose() or other be truly closed
as per Richard suggestion.

In this way the "just works" principle is upheld, and there is no need
to change anything in the current behaviour. A developer can actively choose
to implement persistence state protection or whatever it might be called
outside my kingdom :-)

In addition this allows for a possible semantic change of fclose() to
allow actually closing persistent connections?

[sorry for the noise.]

> 
> regards,
> Lukas Kahwe Smith
> mls@pooteeweet.org
> 
> 
> 
>