# [Fwd: [PATCH] Backport of HEADs output API] - Thread: https://externals.io/message/40553 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/40553 - Started by Michael Wallner on 2008-09-18T19:02:47+00:00 - Messages: 16 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #40553 — Michael Wallner — 2008-09-18T19:02:47+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40553 In case the original with patches attached doesn't get through: http://dev.iworks.at/PATCHES/php53-backport_output.txt http://dev.iworks.at/PATCHES/pecl-backport_output.txt -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PATCH] Backport of HEADs output API Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:51:45 +0200 From: Michael Wallner Newsgroups: php.internals Hi, as some people including RM have asked me to backport HEAD's output API (main/output.c) I prepared a patch wich does that--what else... There's one for current PHP-5.3 source and a tiny one for PECL. Regards, Mike --- ## #40663 — david.zuelke@bitextender.com — 2008-09-24T13:17:04+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40663 · In reply to: #40553 Am 18.09.2008 um 21:02 schrieb Michael Wallner: > In case the original with patches attached doesn't get through: > > http://dev.iworks.at/PATCHES/php53-backport_output.txt > http://dev.iworks.at/PATCHES/pecl-backport_output.txt Isn't there a typo in colorer.cpp: + php_outout_get_contents(return_value); shouldn't that be + php_output_get_contents(return_value); - David --- ## #40664 — Pierre Joye — 2008-09-24T13:38:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40664 · In reply to: #40553 hi, > In case the original with patches attached doesn't get through: > > http://dev.iworks.at/PATCHES/php53-backport_output.txt > http://dev.iworks.at/PATCHES/pecl-backport_output.txt > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [PATCH] Backport of HEADs output API > Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:51:45 +0200 > From: Michael Wallner > Newsgroups: php.internals > > Hi, > > as some people including RM have asked me to backport HEAD's output API > (main/output.c) I prepared a patch wich does that--what else... > > There's one for current PHP-5.3 source and a tiny one for PECL. What's the status on that? Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #40680 — Lukas Kahwe Smith — 2008-09-25T13:54:36+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40680 · In reply to: #40553 > In case the original with patches attached doesn't get through: > > http://dev.iworks.at/PATCHES/php53-backport_output.txt > http://dev.iworks.at/PATCHES/pecl-backport_output.txt well the question is does it fix some real world bugs? this late in the game i would not want to include these changes if they "just" add features .. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith mls@pooteeweet.org --- ## #40681 — Pierre Joye — 2008-09-25T13:57:19+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40681 · In reply to: #40680 hi, > > > > > […] > > > well the question is does it fix some real world bugs? this late in the game > i would not want to include these changes if they "just" add features .. It does not only add features, it cleans up the mess as well. It will also greatly ease our work if HEAD and 5.3 has the same code base. I'm in favor of merging this code to 5.3 (for the record). Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #40703 — Michael Wallner — 2008-09-26T10:04:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40703 · In reply to: #40680 Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > well the question is does it fix some real world bugs? this late in the > game i would not want to include these changes if they "just" add > features .. Huh? :) The question to me is, why did you ask me to do it, when you're not sure what it's about? Not to be anally at all... ;) The greatest plus to me are: - getting rid of monolithic php_end_ob_buffer() - getting rid of output handler specific code in SAPI.c - being able to hook from the running output handler to change it's behavior - being able to clearly configure conflicts and reverse conflicts between output handlers Regards, Mike --- ## #40710 — Lukas Kahwe Smith — 2008-09-26T19:38:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40710 · In reply to: #40703 > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > […] > > Huh? :) The question to me is, why did you ask me to do it, when > you're not sure what it's about? Not to be anally at all... ;) I guess we cleared up the misunderstanding on IRC. > The greatest plus to me are: > - getting rid of monolithic php_end_ob_buffer() > - getting rid of output handler specific code in SAPI.c > - being able to hook from the running output handler to change it's > behavior > - being able to clearly configure conflicts and reverse conflicts > between output handlers These are all convincing arguments to have done this earlier. But Johannes and I are a bit worried, that this code did not see that much testing since it was checked in to HEAD quite a while ago. And seeing that the backport is mainly cleanup and not bug fixing, we are a bit worried about the risk this backport has (not necessarily in it introducing bugs, but more about BC issues here and there). Especially since it seems that you are the only one who actively looks after output buffering .. (Johannes actually asked to have this stuff in PHP 5.3 months ago, but you were a bit MIA back then .. and nobody else showed interest). So unless you can take our worries away in terms of BC issues, I guess we would prefer to leave this patch out of PHP 5.3. Sorry about the misunderstanding and the work you put into producing this patch. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith mls@pooteeweet.org --- ## #40712 — Pierre Joye — 2008-09-26T19:59:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40712 · In reply to: #40710 > So unless you can take our worries away in terms of BC issues, I guess we > would prefer to leave this patch out of PHP 5.3. I strongly disagree, for two reasons: 1. We are going to release an alpha3, that's the perfect time for such change 2. The OB code is messy right now, Mike's work cleaned it up and makes it more maintainable. 5.3 is going to be here for a long time, let make our work easier. Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #40713 — Jani Taskinen — 2008-09-26T20:01:50+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40713 · In reply to: #40710 Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > > > > […] > > I guess we cleared up the misunderstanding on IRC. > > > […] > > > These are all convincing arguments to have done this earlier. But > Johannes and I are a bit worried, that this code did not see that much > testing since it was checked in to HEAD quite a while ago. And seeing > that the backport is mainly cleanup and not bug fixing, we are a bit > worried about the risk this backport has (not necessarily in it > introducing bugs, but more about BC issues here and there). Especially > since it seems that you are the only one who actively looks after output > buffering .. (Johannes actually asked to have this stuff in PHP 5.3 > months ago, but you were a bit MIA back then .. and nobody else showed > interest). > > So unless you can take our worries away in terms of BC issues, I guess > we would prefer to leave this patch out of PHP 5.3. > Sorry about the misunderstanding and the work you put into producing > this patch. The patch fixes several output buffer bugs. Those alone are enough to allow this getting in PHP_5_3 and really get TESTED too. You're releasing alphas still, so something like this is not really that bad.. --Jani --- ## #40714 — Daniel Brown — 2008-09-26T20:03:13+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40714 · In reply to: #40712 > > I strongly disagree, for two reasons: > > 1. We are going to release an alpha3, that's the perfect time for such change > 2. The OB code is messy right now, Mike's work cleaned it up and makes > it more maintainable. 5.3 is going to be here for a long time, let > make our work easier. I've just been reading the thread as it's gone along and not contributing, but I'd like to add that I'm +1 with Pierre here. -- More full-root dedicated server packages: Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo. Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo. Intel 2.4GHz/320/GB/1GB/3TB $74.99/mo. Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo. --- ## #40715 — Lukas Kahwe Smith — 2008-09-26T20:04:39+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40715 · In reply to: #40712 > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith > wrote: > > > […] > > I strongly disagree, for two reasons: > > 1. We are going to release an alpha3, that's the perfect time for > such change Perfect might be overstating things. Lets say it makes it possible to even consider it. > 2. The OB code is messy right now, Mike's work cleaned it up and makes > it more maintainable. 5.3 is going to be here for a long time, let > make our work easier. Well but messy just means its even harder to ensure BC. Like I said in my mail, we would have loved to have seen this earlier (when Johannes originally asked for this). The fact that nobody stepped up back then is also telling us RM's that there is a definitive risk that if there are issues, we might end up with a similar situation as back then. Without having evaluated the code in the last detail, it seems that OB stuff is not small or self contained by any stretch of the definition. Given that this patch fixes no existing bugs, we have decided that its too risky to do right before what we hope will be the final alpha3 in one of the most feature rich minor releases in PHP history. We do not want to risk delay this release for something that might be messy, but has/does work more or less reliably for people. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith mls@pooteeweet.org --- ## #40716 — Lukas Kahwe Smith — 2008-09-26T20:05:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40716 · In reply to: #40713 > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > […] > > The patch fixes several output buffer bugs. Those alone are enough > to allow this getting in PHP_5_3 and really get TESTED too. if it does fix bugs .. that changes things of course .. but i asked Mike specifically about this .. and he did not mention this .. so does it fix bugs or not? regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith mls@pooteeweet.org --- ## #40717 — Hannes Magnusson — 2008-09-26T20:06:41+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40717 · In reply to: #40710 > > and I are a bit worried, that this code did not see that much testing since > it was checked in to HEAD quite a while ago. And seeing that the backport is That sentence worries me a bit. Are you advocating developing new features in 5.x branches rather then HEAD? That code has been in HEAD for months, I so no reason not to merge it. We are in alpha phase for a reason just like this. -Hannes --- ## #40718 — Hannes Magnusson — 2008-09-26T20:09:36+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40718 · In reply to: #40716 > if it does fix bugs .. that changes things of course .. but i asked Mike > specifically about this .. and he did not mention this .. so does it fix > bugs or not? It does contain at least one bug fix (see HEAD NEWS) and many obscure bugs that have probably been bogusfied in the past. -Hannes --- ## #40719 — Lukas Kahwe Smith — 2008-09-26T20:12:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40719 · In reply to: #40717 > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 21:38, Lukas Kahwe Smith > wrote: > > […] > > That sentence worries me a bit. Are you advocating developing new > features in 5.x branches rather then HEAD? Not at all. I am not sure how you even read that into what I said. > That code has been in HEAD for months, I so no reason not to merge it. > We are in alpha phase for a reason just like this. All I said was that the fact that it has been in HEAD is no proof that there are no BC issues or even new bugs in it. Again Johannes asked for this to be merged long long long ago and nobody reacted. Now we are at alpha2, hoping to release the last alpha soon. We have plenty of other big stuff that really wants to make it out of the door. BTW: we have a similar situation for mcrypt. We have "cleanups" (though Derick does not define them as such) in HEAD, which have not been merged to 5.3. I dont like this at all, since either cleanups make sense or they dont. However the larger the cleanups, the messier the old code, the trickier it is to get BC just right and the less I think it makes sense to add such cleanups now. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith mls@pooteeweet.org --- ## #40722 — Steph Fox — 2008-09-27T00:34:41+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/40553#40722 · In reply to: #40718 > It does contain at least one bug fix (see HEAD NEWS) and many obscure > bugs that have probably been bogusfied in the past. I'm mouthy tonight. But I should say two things ('cos that's what I do best): 1) Mike's version of output buffering has been sitting in HEAD for a very long time 2) He wrote it because he saw problems with the existing solution the only issue is of course: 3) has it been tested enough to justify making it mainstream PHP? - Steph