OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that stops
'<?=' working when it was working previously?
I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that 'defaulted' to
off when previously it was on? I had thought that '<?=' was discussed and had
been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on PHP5.4.0
Something broke sites without any warning and it would have been nice to be told
by that ISP that they were updating PHP anyway :(
--
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
OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that
stops '<?=' working when it was working previously?
I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that
'defaulted' to off when previously it was on? I had thought that '<?=' was
discussed and had been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on PHP5.4.0Something broke sites without any warning and it would have been nice to
be told by that ISP that they were updating PHP anyway :(
In 5.4.0 the <?= will be always available regarding from the value of
short_open_tag
but that has nothing to do with 5.3, or your problem.
as far as I can see, we didn't changed neither the php.ini-*files, nor the
hard-coded default value for short_open_tag:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/main/main.c?view=annotate
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/configure.in?view=annotate
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/win32/build/config.w32.h.in?view=annotate
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/php.ini-production?view=annotate#l226
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/php.ini-development?view=annotate#l226
if your ini files are the same as with the previous install, then my guess
is that you (or your distributor) started compiling php
with --disable-short-tags, and you didn't explicitly enable the
short_open_tag from your php.ini
that is, or we have a bug. :/
Tyrael
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk
mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that stops '<?=' working when it was working previously? I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that 'defaulted' to off when previously it was on? I had thought that '<?=' was discussed and had been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on PHP5.4.0 Something broke sites without any warning and it would have been nice to be told by that ISP that they were updating PHP anyway :(In 5.4.0 the <?= will be always available regarding from the value of short_open_tag
but that has nothing to do with 5.3, or your problem.
as far as I can see, we didn't changed neither the php.ini-*files, nor the
hard-coded default value for short_open_tag:http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/main/main.c?view=annotate
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/configure.in?view=annotate
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/win32/build/config.w32.h.in?view=annotatehttp://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/php.ini-production?view=annotate#l226
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/php.ini-development?view=annotate#l226
if your ini files are the same as with the previous install, then my guess is
that you (or your distributor) started compiling php with --disable-short-tags,
and you didn't explicitly enable the short_open_tag from your php.ini
that is, or we have a bug. :/
I'm still waiting on an answer back from the ISP as to what they ACTUALLY did.
In the meantime I've been around all the affected sites and changed things so
they work. It's just annoying that I've had to spend most of the morning
'fire-fighting' something that should never have happened :(
The sites will be moving onto machines under my control anyway, but that will
take a while. I can't work with suppliers who take hours to even respond to a
problem and don't provide update information.
--
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
OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that stops
Nothing as a
$ svn diff
https://svn.php.net/repository/php/php-src/tags/php_5_3_9
https://svn.php.net/repository/php/php-src/tags/php_5_3_10
clearly shows. This must be due to configuration changes
(--disable-short-tags or php.ini changes or something)
johannes
'<?=' working when it was working previously?
I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that 'defaulted' to
off when previously it was on? I had thought that '<?=' was discussed and had
been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on PHP5.4.0Something broke sites without any warning and it would have been nice to be told
by that ISP that they were updating PHP anyway :(--
Lester Caine - G8HFLContact - 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
OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that
stops '<?=' working when it was working previously?
I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that
'defaulted' to off when previously it was on? I had thought that '<?=' was
discussed and had been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on PHP5.4.0
What's the value of short_open_tag? If disabled, does the host's setup
allow you to set its value?
Something broke sites without any warning and it would have been nice to
be told by that ISP that they were updating PHP anyway :(--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value-- except that,
unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some frameworks
TTBOMK. So, as worthless as it is, removing it completely would render
these apps inoperable. Leaving it turned-off by default is a given I
think, as at very least people should be discouraged from using them. I
also wouldn't be opposed to the idea of deprecating them, which would allow
these apps time to fix their code accordingly.
I can't address the original question about its current status; I just
wanted to weight in on the "what's the value" question. Answer: None,
except that too many people are still using them. =)
--Kris
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Galen Wright-Watson ww.galen@gmail.comwrote:
OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that
stops '<?=' working when it was working previously?
I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that
'defaulted' to off when previously it was on? I had thought that '<?='
was
discussed and had been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on
PHP5.4.0What's the value of short_open_tag? If disabled, does the host's setup
allow you to set its value?Something broke sites without any warning and it would have been nice to
be told by that ISP that they were updating PHP anyway :(--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Err *short_open_tag
Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value-- except that,
unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some frameworks
TTBOMK. So, as worthless as it is, removing it completely would render
these apps inoperable. Leaving it turned-off by default is a given I
think, as at very least people should be discouraged from using them. I
also wouldn't be opposed to the idea of deprecating them, which would allow
these apps time to fix their code accordingly.I can't address the original question about its current status; I just
wanted to weight in on the "what's the value" question. Answer: None,
except that too many people are still using them. =)--Kris
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Galen Wright-Watson ww.galen@gmail.comwrote:
OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that
stops '<?=' working when it was working previously?
I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that
'defaulted' to off when previously it was on? I had thought that '<?='
was
discussed and had been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on
PHP5.4.0What's the value of short_open_tag? If disabled, does the host's setup
allow you to set its value?Something broke sites without any warning and it would have been nice to
be told by that ISP that they were updating PHP anyway :(--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Kris Craig wrote:
Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value--except that,
unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some frameworks
TTBOMK. So, as worthless as it is, removing it completely would render
these apps inoperable. Leaving it turned-off by default is a given I
think, as at very least people should be discouraged from using them. I
also wouldn't be opposed to the idea of deprecating them, which would allow
these apps time to fix their code accordingly.
While I think that we SHOULD just have stuck up for '<?' when the 'problem'
arose I'm resigned to having to use <?php nowadays and it's not a problem anyway
when most of the html work is done in smarty templates, but '<?=' is still
perfectly valid, and makes a lot more sense to keep - which it HAS been in 5.4 -
It's just the tie-in with short_open_tag that has caused the agro in 5.3.10 with
people following the 'recommendation' to switch it off without even advising
they are doing so or understanding what else will be broken :(
When one has customers ringing up asking why their sites are down and YOU have
not changed anything, finding out why took a little while this morning ...
--
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
Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value-- except that,
unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some frameworks
TTBOMK.
I personally like it and find value in its inclusion :)
Adam
I understand the problem with <? and XML, it was just <?= that seemed
safe enough to me. Glad it's standard in 5.4.
Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value-- except that,
unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some frameworks
TTBOMK.I personally like it and find value in its inclusion :)
Adam
--
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com
Certainly. I don't believe this is about "inclusion" any more than
creating a function called "ech" as an alias for "echo" would be. The <?
tag, as you all know, creates problems when working with XML. Furthermore,
I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found
it to be exactly the opposite. The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for
me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code begins
(i.e. it's smaller and more ambiguous). Also, since many hosts disable it
by default, getting apps/frameworks that use them working can be an added
pain.
On the other hand, considering how verbose many of our function names are,
I've never understood why the extra 3 characters (or 2 now that it's <?=)
is such a burden that we have to deal with all the above annoyances
instead. Like I said, other than the fraction of a second it takes to type
"php", I really don't see any value in this.
Let's try this from a financial angle. After all, "time is money," right?
So let's assume that, on average, it takes you one half of one second to
type the string "php". Let's also assume that the average salary for a PHP
developer (source: simplyhired.com) in the United States is $56,000/yr.
Rounding-up, that comes out to $27/hr. So, how much is that one half of
one second burden costing this unfortunate, superbly average PHP
developer? 27 / (60 ^ 2) / 2 == $0.00375. In other words, roughly 1/3 of
one cent.
So yeah, I guess I stand corrected. The short_open_tag isn't worthless.
It's worth a third of a penny. My bad. ;P
--Kris
P.S. Seriously, if you like short_open_tags, it's really not a big deal for
me. I just don't see any value in them, myself.
I understand the problem with <? and XML, it was just <?= that seemed
safe enough to me. Glad it's standard in 5.4.On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Adam Jon Richardson adamjonr@gmail.com
wrote:Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value-- except that,
unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some
frameworks
TTBOMK.I personally like it and find value in its inclusion :)
Adam
--
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com
Am 06.03.2012 01:03, schrieb Kris Craig:
I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found
it to be exactly the opposite. The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for
me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code begins
if you hvae a usebale editor <?=$whatever?> would become different colors
only in notepad or on the shell you would not see php-code but
who does develop this way these days?
On Windows (where I generally do most of my scripting grunt work), I
typically use Notepad++ and it highlights <?php just fine.
--Kris
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 06.03.2012 01:03, schrieb Kris Craig:
I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found
it to be exactly the opposite. The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for
me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code
beginsif you hvae a usebale editor <?=$whatever?> would become different colors
only in notepad or on the shell you would not see php-code but
who does develop this way these days?
Am 06.03.2012 01:13, schrieb Kris Craig:
On Windows (where I generally do most of my scripting grunt work),
I typically use Notepad++ and it highlights
<?php just fine.Am 06.03.2012 01:03, schrieb Kris Craig: > I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found > it to be exactly the opposite. The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for > me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code begins if you hvae a usebale editor <?=$whatever?> would become different colors only in notepad or on the shell you would not see php-code but who does develop this way these days?
FIRST:
do NOT top post after get a reply below your text
or how do you imagine that anybody can follow a
thread where answers randomly before and after
the quotet text?
SECOND:
it is simply clear that it highlights "<?php" - what do you try to tell me?
what i said is "throw it away if it does NOT highlight "<?=$var?>"
the "<?=$var?>" is much easier readable as "<?php echo $var;?>"
Responses inline per your request.
--Kris
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 06.03.2012 01:13, schrieb Kris Craig:
On Windows (where I generally do most of my scripting grunt work),
I typically use Notepad++ and it highlights
<?php just fine.On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net<mailto:
h.reindl@thelounge.net>> wrote:
Am 06.03.2012 01:03, schrieb Kris Craig:
> I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since
I've found
> it to be exactly the opposite. The <? as opposed to <?php, at
least for
> me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP
code beginsif you hvae a usebale editor <?=$whatever?> would become differentcolors
only in notepad or on the shell you would not see php-code but who does develop this way these days?FIRST:
do NOT top post after get a reply below your text
or how do you imagine that anybody can follow a
thread where answers randomly before and after
the quotet text?
Sorry. Sometimes I forget that there are some people out there who still
use legacy non-threaded inboxes. I would recommend you consider switching
to Gmail or some other email client/service that supports threaded views.
That will make it a lot easier for you to follow these threads. =)
SECOND:
it is simply clear that it highlights "<?php" - what do you try to tell me?
what i said is "throw it away if it does NOT highlight "<?=$var?>"the "<?=$var?>" is much easier readable as "<?php echo $var;?>"
To clarify again, I was under the mistaken impression that <?= was a new
alias for short_open_tag. My argument was (and still is) against
short_open_tag. I do see some use in this new echo alias for templating
purposes.
--Kris
Am 06.03.2012 19:36, schrieb Kris Craig:
Sorry. Sometimes I forget that there are some people out there who still
use legacy non-threaded inboxes. I would recommend you consider switching
to Gmail or some other email client/service that supports threaded views.
That will make it a lot easier for you to follow these threads. =)
do not argue so silly
no software can fix missing skills
and no thread-view can repair the fact that people get
confused if there is reply-question-reply in random order
and no it is not acceptable to open 5 messages for an
overview of a thread because it is wasted time
if you get an answer below your question put your
answer also below instead telling people which
software they should use only because you are
unable for proper use of the medium e-mail
and no i will surely NOT put my mails to google
since i am mail-admin at my own also i will not
switch any settings in thunderbird or even consider
another mail-client because some random people are
not thinking 2 seconds before they act
FIRST:
do NOT top post after get a reply below your text
or how do you imagine that anybody can follow a
thread where answers randomly before and after
the quotet text?
Sorry. Sometimes I forget that there are some people out there who still
use legacy non-threaded inboxes. I would recommend you consider switching
to Gmail or some other email client/service that supports threaded views.
That will make it a lot easier for you to follow these threads. =)
Threaded MUAs won't help when fragments appear as
3
1
2
4
In such cases, the people breaking the thread convention should
the very least remove all the other content.
And yes, his MUA does support threading.
To clarify again, I was under the mistaken impression that <?= was a new
alias for short_open_tag. My argument was (and still is) against
short_open_tag. I do see some use in this new echo alias for templating
purposes.--Kris
<?= has been there for ages, since PHP 3.
2012/3/6 Ángel González keisial@gmail.com
<nitpicking mode="on">FIRST:
do NOT top post after get a reply below your text
or how do you imagine that anybody can follow a
thread where answers randomly before and after
the quotet text?
Sorry. Sometimes I forget that there are some people out there who still
use legacy non-threaded inboxes. I would recommend you consider
switching
to Gmail or some other email client/service that supports threaded views.
That will make it a lot easier for you to follow these threads. =)
Threaded MUAs won't help when fragments appear as
3
1
2
4In such cases, the people breaking the thread convention should
</nitpicking>
the very least remove all the other content.
And yes, his MUA does support threading.
I'll try this one last time: I don't know what the solution is. What I do
know is that relying solely on, "people should...." is not a smart approach
because people are going to break that convention regardless of whether
they should or not. Yes, educating people is important, but that in and of
itself isn't working. It doesn't work on any similar listserv I've
subscribed to over the years. It just seems a bit naive to think that we
can keep repeating the same pattern over and over and expect a different
result. What I'm suggesting is that it would be to our benefit to think of
a more sustainable approach. I'm not saying I know what that approach is,
mind you.
To clarify again, I was under the mistaken impression that <?= was a new
alias for short_open_tag. My argument was (and still is) against
short_open_tag. I do see some use in this new echo alias for templating
purposes.--Kris
<?= has been there for ages, since PHP 3.
....And your point is? I initially thought this thread was saying that
this alias had been removed and instead made to replace the
short_open_tag. I stood corrected and we moved on. What does PHP 3 have
to do with any of this? I think you've officially crossed the line from
correcting somebody's error to beating a dead horse. ;P
--Kris
Am 07.03.2012 00:15, schrieb Kris Craig:
In such cases, the people breaking the thread convention should
</nitpicking>
the very least remove all the other content.
And yes, his MUA does support threading.I'll try this one last time: I don't know what the solution is.
learning to use email instead explaining people the have to use
a magical mail-client reparing a message where questions, quotes
and ansers mixed in randomly order - currently no such client
exists and i doubt it will never
El 07/03/12 00:15, Kris Craig wrote:
> To clarify again, I was under the mistaken impression that <?= was a new > alias for short_open_tag. My argument was (and still is) against > short_open_tag. I do see some use in this new echo alias for templating > purposes. > > --Kris <?= has been there for ages, since PHP 3.....And your point is? I initially thought this thread was saying
that this alias had been removed and instead made to replace the
short_open_tag. I stood corrected and we moved on. What does PHP 3
have to do with any of this? I think you've officially crossed the
line from correcting somebody's error to beating a dead horse. ;P--Kris
Sorry. I understood from your mail that you didn't know <?= and you
thought it was an addition aliasing <?
Certainly. I don't believe this is about "inclusion" any more than
creating a function called "ech" as an alias for "echo" would be. The <?
tag, as you all know, creates problems when working with XML. Furthermore,
I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found
it to be exactly the opposite. The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for
me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code begins
(i.e. it's smaller and more ambiguous). Also, since many hosts disable it
by default, getting apps/frameworks that use them working can be an added
pain.On the other hand, considering how verbose many of our function names are,
I've never understood why the extra 3 characters (or 2 now that it's <?=)
is such a burden that we have to deal with all the above annoyances
instead. Like I said, other than the fraction of a second it takes to type
"php", I really don't see any value in this.
The tag <?= isn't a short version for <?php or <?. The <?= allows you to
echo output, so these two examples are equivalent:
<?php echo $var; ?>
<?= $var ?>
http://www.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.short-open-tag
Before 5.4, turning off short tags turned off the shorthand echo tag, too.
The value I referenced was regarding the echo form of the tag (<?=), the
form of the tag Lester was troubleshooting. With 5.4, this will no longer
be a concern, as the echo form will always be available.
Adam
Woops ok, you're right about that.
So then, the short open tag is still just <?? (that last question mark is
punctuation ;P)
--Kris
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Adam Jon Richardson adamjonr@gmail.comwrote:
Certainly. I don't believe this is about "inclusion" any more than
creating a function called "ech" as an alias for "echo" would be. The <?
tag, as you all know, creates problems when working with XML. Furthermore,
I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found
it to be exactly the opposite. The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for
me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code begins
(i.e. it's smaller and more ambiguous). Also, since many hosts disable it
by default, getting apps/frameworks that use them working can be an added
pain.On the other hand, considering how verbose many of our function names
are, I've never understood why the extra 3 characters (or 2 now that it's
<?=) is such a burden that we have to deal with all the above annoyances
instead. Like I said, other than the fraction of a second it takes to type
"php", I really don't see any value in this.The tag <?= isn't a short version for <?php or <?. The <?= allows you to
echo output, so these two examples are equivalent:<?php echo $var; ?>
<?= $var ?>
http://www.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.short-open-tag
Before 5.4, turning off short tags turned off the shorthand echo tag, too.
The value I referenced was regarding the echo form of the tag (<?=), the
form of the tag Lester was troubleshooting. With 5.4, this will no longer
be a concern, as the echo form will always be available.Adam
Galen Wright-Watson wrote:
OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that
stops '<?=' working when it was working previously?
I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that
'defaulted' to off when previously it was on? I had thought that'<?=' was
discussed and had been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on PHP5.4.0What's the value of short_open_tag? If disabled, does the host's setup
allow you to set its value?
If you read the other posts you will see the answers ;)
The ISP hosting these sites has not got back to me yet, but it would seem that
when they updated from 5.3.9 to 5.3.10 they also switched off short_open_tag
when previously it had been on. It's a little annoying that I've had to rework
these sites when I WILL put it back again once I can move them to a site where
it does not matter. I prefer the shorthand as the longhand makes the code a lot
more difficult to read.
Something broke sites without any warning and it would have been nice to
be told by that ISP that they were updating PHP anyway:(
This is the sort of insidious little change that gets annoying when people don't
understand the consequences of changing it. I wonder how many more people have
been affected just on this ISP ...
--
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
Galen Wright-Watson wrote:
OK what changed in the automatic updates from PHP5.3.9 to 5.3.10 that
stops '<?=' working when it was working previously?
I do not recall the state of short_open_tag changing but was that
'defaulted' to off when previously it was on? I had thought
that'<?=' was
discussed and had been left alone, but now I'm told that is only on
PHP5.4.0What's the value of short_open_tag? If disabled, does the host's setup
allow you to set its value?If you read the other posts you will see the answers ;)
Only you can answer these questions, as only someone on the host can check
the default configuration and what can be configured. The others on this
list can only state how PHP should behave (which is what they posted). For
all we know, your host is running a custom patch.
Hopefully, you can simply enable short_open_tags in .htaccess, so that code
edits aren't required.
The ISP hosting these sites has not got back to me yet, but it would
seem that when they updated from 5.3.9 to 5.3.10 they also switched off
short_open_tag when previously it had been on.
I've learned it also the hard way the ISPs or Hosters did change INI
settings. I've started to document their INIs for every new version and
compare them immediately once they upgraded to spot the differences.
Worked well for me (as long as I had to be dependent on such companies),
YMMV.
- Markus
Markus Fischer wrote:
The ISP hosting these sites has not got back to me yet, but it would
seem that when they updated from 5.3.9 to 5.3.10 they also switched off
short_open_tag when previously it had been on.I've learned it also the hard way the ISPs or Hosters did change INI settings.
I've started to document their INIs for every new version and compare them
immediately once they upgraded to spot the differences. Worked well for me (as
long as I had to be dependent on such companies), YMMV.
I'd only taken over managing these sites in the last month which is why I was
panicking a bit. I've only just finished cloning all the site data to one of my
own systems and cloning the config would have been the next step :) Not having
had time to review the code I did not even know where the problems were ...
Kris - this is just about '<?=' and while I don't normally embed php in html
templates, it is much better to see <?=$data?> than <?php echo $data ?> and this
seems to be used by a number of frameworks - hence fixing the problem in 5.4 ...
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
hi,
May I suggest to discuss that on php-general?
Markus Fischer wrote:
The ISP hosting these sites has not got back to me yet, but it would
seem that when they updated from 5.3.9 to 5.3.10 they also switched off
short_open_tag when previously it had been on.I've learned it also the hard way the ISPs or Hosters did change INI
settings.
I've started to document their INIs for every new version and compare them
immediately once they upgraded to spot the differences. Worked well for me
(as
long as I had to be dependent on such companies), YMMV.I'd only taken over managing these sites in the last month which is why I
was panicking a bit. I've only just finished cloning all the site data to
one of my own systems and cloning the config would have been the next step
:) Not having had time to review the code I did not even know where the
problems were ...Kris - this is just about '<?=' and while I don't normally embed php in html
templates, it is much better to see <?=$data?> than <?php echo $data ?> and
this seems to be used by a number of frameworks - hence fixing the problem
in 5.4 ...--
Lester Caine - G8HFLContact - 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--
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org