Home > Archive > PHP Documentation > May 2004 > Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: distribution of INI information in the manual
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: distribution of INI information in the manual
|
|
| Nuno Lopes 2004-05-24, 10:31 am |
| > >> Sine only the ini_set() page is updated from time to time, this is
I agree absolutly with this! I think we should create an appendix with this
info and just have a link from ini_set to it.
[color=darkred]
>
> Well, we can replicate the table in multiple places if needed with such
> an entity.
I agree with an entity here!
> I have put some more thought into this yesterday, and uncovered some
> other problems. If we go on the 'replace the scope table in the files'
> route, which is employed currently, then we need to do this in all
> translations as well, to make them up to date. Also these changes make
> the revision number of the files go up by one, so if we change the
> translations too automatically, then the revision checking will not be
> fine with these changes (the file would be be marked out of date, while
> it would be up to date). So it might be a good idea to instead of
> rewriting the XML files, we would introduce an ini-options.ent file into
> the entities folder, which would contain the ini option tables which go
> to the different extension sections and which go to the general ini
> options section. That way we would only need to update one file with the
> INI options generation script (while still with the need of
> differentiating between ini options by extensions) and translations
> would be automatically up to date.
+1 here, too. We could have the appendice file with a simple entity. This
would leave all languages always up-to-date.
Now I will have my final tests (so that I can go to the high school next
year). I'll end all the tests in the begining of July. Then I'll try to do a
script to update the ini settings that could be run automatically. I'm not a
regexp expert, but I'm reading the Oreilly's book :)
[color=darkred]
>
> Why is PHP a literal? It could be a <productname> or something but why a
> literal? BTW I am not entirely sure that an entitiy is needed for this.
> I would be fine with the style "PHP 4.2.0" without entities.
I think that there is no need to have <literal>PHP</literal> as an entity. I
think we could use just PHP and get ride of those entities.
Just check the migration5.xml appendice in livedocs and wou will see how
horrible PHP is formated.
Nuno
P.S.: I'm in peace :) but what about the website? I was thinking in
sourceforge as they allow VHOSTS (and so we could have a docs.php.net).
I've mail them to ask if they can update PHP (they have a very old version:
4.2.2) and install the sqlite module, so that we could have livedocs running
with all languages. For now, I've set up a cron job that makes a revcheck
for all languages (updated everyday):
http://phpdocmanager.sourceforge.net/revcheck/
| |
| Gabor Hojtsy 2004-05-24, 10:31 am |
| >>>>Sine only the ini_set() page is updated from time to time, this is
>
> I agree absolutly with this! I think we should create an appendix with this
> info and just have a link from ini_set to it.
Great. No opposition yet :)
>
> +1 here, too. We could have the appendice file with a simple entity. This
> would leave all languages always up-to-date.
Well that appendix will have the explanation on misc ini settings, so it
will not only be an entity, but a significant part of the contents will
be an entity.
>
> Now I will have my final tests (so that I can go to the high school next
> year). I'll end all the tests in the begining of July. Then I'll try to do a
> script to update the ini settings that could be run automatically. I'm not a
> regexp expert, but I'm reading the Oreilly's book :)
Now you made me curious on how old are you. :)
>
> I think that there is no need to have <literal>PHP</literal> as an entity. I
> think we could use just PHP and get ride of those entities.
> Just check the migration5.xml appendice in livedocs and wou will see how
> horrible PHP is formated.
It is not just the format, but the meaning as well. Literal is not meant
to be used for 'product names' AFAIK.
> P.S.: I'm in peace :) but what about the website? I was thinking in
> sourceforge as they allow VHOSTS (and so we could have a docs.php.net).
> I've mail them to ask if they can update PHP (they have a very old version:
> 4.2.2) and install the sqlite module, so that we could have livedocs running
> with all languages. For now, I've set up a cron job that makes a revcheck
> for all languages (updated everyday):
> http://phpdocmanager.sourceforge.net/revcheck/
SF does not allow you to host some website which is not closely related
to the project you run on SF. We are not going to move the CVS to
SF.net, so it is not justifyable to put any services there. It does not
fit into the terms of service AFAIK.
Goba
| |
| Nuno Lopes 2004-05-24, 10:31 am |
| > Now you made me curious on how old are you. :)
almost 18 :)
entity. I[color=darkred]
>
> It is not just the format, but the meaning as well. Literal is not meant
> to be used for 'product names' AFAIK.
From the manual:
"A Literal is some specific piece of data, taken literally, from a computer
system. It is similar in some ways to UserInput and ComputerOutput, but is
somewhat more of a general classification. The sorts of things that
constitute literals varies by domain."
So <literal> isn't the best choice!!
> SF does not allow you to host some website which is not closely related
> to the project you run on SF. We are not going to move the CVS to
> SF.net, so it is not justifyable to put any services there. It does not
> fit into the terms of service AFAIK.
Of course we aren't going to move CVS to SF.net servers, but...
We need a server to at least test livedocs. As belong to a big open source
project... Let's wait for their answer!
Nuno
| |
| Gabor Hojtsy 2004-05-24, 10:31 am |
| >>Now you made me curious on how old are you. :)
>
> almost 18 :)
So you are going out of High Shool, not into it, right?
> "A Literal is some specific piece of data, taken literally, from a computer
> system. It is similar in some ways to UserInput and ComputerOutput, but is
> somewhat more of a general classification. The sorts of things that
> constitute literals varies by domain."
>
> So <literal> isn't the best choice!!
Right.
>
> Of course we aren't going to move CVS to SF.net servers, but...
> We need a server to at least test livedocs. As belong to a big open source
> project... Let's wait for their answer!
Let's wait.
Goba
| |
| Wez Furlong 2004-05-24, 12:32 pm |
| I know you guys are overly prejudiced against systems@, but why not run it on
our own systems??
--Wez.
> closely related
> It does not
>
> Of course we aren't going to move CVS to SF.net servers, but...
> We need a server to at least test livedocs. As belong to a
> big open source
> project... Let's wait for their answer!
>
> Nuno
>
| |
| Gabor Hojtsy 2004-05-24, 12:32 pm |
| > I know you guys are overly prejudiced against systems@, but why not run it on
> our own systems??
Our experience was that the guys at systems are already overloaded with
work, and it would probably not be a good idea to put more load on them.
There are some long awaiting stuff, which would need that new machine.
The PDFs are not built for a long time now, and the so called 'new
machine' - which is probably building the HTML versions right now - was
said to have enough resources to build the PDFs. There is a good amount
of demand for them, and we need a strong machine to build them.
Goba
| |
| Mehdi Achour 2004-05-24, 12:32 pm |
| We have the server and all the hardware, but we need to wait for nexen
to set them up.
They have a lot of work, but I think that it will be on this summer.
(cc'ing gui from nexen and poz the donator)
didou
Wez Furlong wrote:
>I know you guys are overly prejudiced against systems@, but why not run it on
>our own systems??
>
>--Wez.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Wez Furlong 2004-05-24, 12:32 pm |
| If you come up with a concrete list of what you need to do, we should be able
to sort something out.
IIRC, the docs.php.net box is marked for phpdoc (but has some bandwidth
problems?).
--Wez.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gabor Hojtsy [mailto:gabor@hojtsy.hu]
> Sent: 24 May 2004 15:19
> To: Wez Furlong
> Cc: 'Nuno Lopes'; 'Mehdi Achour'; 'PHPdoc';
> doc-de@lists.php.net; doc-fr@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: distribution of INI information in
> the manual
>
> why not run it on
>
> Our experience was that the guys at systems are already
> overloaded with
> work, and it would probably not be a good idea to put more
> load on them.
> There are some long awaiting stuff, which would need that new
> machine.
> The PDFs are not built for a long time now, and the so called 'new
> machine' - which is probably building the HTML versions right
> now - was
> said to have enough resources to build the PDFs. There is a
> good amount
> of demand for them, and we need a strong machine to build them.
>
> Goba
>
| |
| Gabor Hojtsy 2004-05-24, 12:32 pm |
| As Mehdi pointed out, he was able to get some hardware and hosting
offer, and the future admin of the server also offered root access to
systems people, so if that admin has no opportunity to set up the
services on the server, than maybe systems@ has?
BTW Derick told me that the current docs. machine should not be made
public. Maybe because of the bandwidth issues, I am not aware of the
real reason...
Goba
> If you come up with a concrete list of what you need to do, we should be able
> to sort something out.
>
> IIRC, the docs.php.net box is marked for phpdoc (but has some bandwidth
> problems?).
>
> --Wez.
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Jacques Marneweck 2004-05-24, 12:32 pm |
| Hi all,
I'm willing to host the livedocs site if everyone would like me to host it.
Regards
--jm
-----Original Message-----
From: Wez Furlong [mailto:wez@thebrainroom.com]
Sent: 24 May 2004 04:13 PM
To: 'Nuno Lopes'; 'Gabor Hojtsy'
Cc: 'Mehdi Achour'; 'PHPdoc'; doc-de@lists.php.net; doc-fr@lists.php.net
Subject: RE: [PHP-DOC] Re: distribution of INI information in the manual
I know you guys are overly prejudiced against systems@, but why not run it
on
our own systems??
--Wez.
> closely related
> It does not
>
> Of course we aren't going to move CVS to SF.net servers, but...
> We need a server to at least test livedocs. As belong to a
> big open source
> project... Let's wait for their answer!
>
> Nuno
>
| |
| Wez Furlong 2004-05-24, 12:32 pm |
| Please turn of read-reciepts when posting to the mailing lists.
You can't possibly want to know when every single subscriber has read your
email.
> Hi all,
>
> I'm willing to host the livedocs site if everyone would like
> me to host it.
>
> Regards
> --jm
| |
| James Cox 2004-05-24, 12:32 pm |
| We can get you a space for doc building and so forth, but right now
we're working on some other important stuff that takes precedence..
- james
On 24 May 2004, at 15:33, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> As Mehdi pointed out, he was able to get some hardware and hosting
> offer, and the future admin of the server also offered root access to
> systems people, so if that admin has no opportunity to set up the
> services on the server, than maybe systems@ has?
>
> BTW Derick told me that the current docs. machine should not be made
> public. Maybe because of the bandwidth issues, I am not aware of the
> real reason...
>
> Goba
>
>
>
--
James Cox - james (at) imajes (dot) info - http://imajes.info/
| |
| Gabor Hojtsy 2004-05-24, 2:30 pm |
| I think you misunderstood the point. We would not like to split up the
stuff and host on different servers. We would better live with a server
which is capable of serving our needs (building docs in HTML, PDF, etc.,
regular building of revcheck info, providing services for translation
teams, etc.).
Goba
> I'm willing to host the livedocs site if everyone would like me to host it.
>
> Regards
> --jm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wez Furlong [mailto:wez@thebrainroom.com]
> Sent: 24 May 2004 04:13 PM
> To: 'Nuno Lopes'; 'Gabor Hojtsy'
> Cc: 'Mehdi Achour'; 'PHPdoc'; doc-de@lists.php.net; doc-fr@lists.php.net
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DOC] Re: distribution of INI information in the manual
>
>
> I know you guys are overly prejudiced against systems@, but why not run it
> on
> our own systems??
>
> --Wez.
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Gabor Hojtsy 2004-05-24, 2:30 pm |
| > We can get you a space for doc building and so forth, but right now
> we're working on some other important stuff that takes precedence..
I would be happy if you would be able to find the time sometime, but so
far, there was always something else that took precendence. I *know* and
*understand* that the current focus of systems is more important, so do
not take this as an offence.
Goba
| |
| Derick Rethans 2004-05-26, 3:36 am |
| On Mon, 24 May 2004, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> BTW Derick told me that the current docs. machine should not be made
> public. Maybe because of the bandwidth issues, I am not aware of the
> real reason...
It's not bandwidth issues, but just plain speed. If you want to use it
as a testbed fine, that's what it is for, but as it's only a 350mhz CPU
it can never handle the load to serve as a public machine.
Also, it's likely that I can hand out some shell accounts to this
machine.
regards,
Derick
| |
| Derick Rethans 2004-05-26, 3:36 am |
| On Mon, 24 May 2004, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> I think you misunderstood the point. We would not like to split up the
> stuff and host on different servers. We would better live with a server
> which is capable of serving our needs (building docs in HTML, PDF, etc.,
> regular building of revcheck info, providing services for translation
> teams, etc.).
I need to set-up this for real, it 'kinda' works now, but misses some
parts (ie. for PDF). I hope get it this done later this w (as soon as
I settled in here).
But, I don't see really why we need to have this
same box as a testbed for livedocs; I don't really want people messing
with the set-up of this machine.
regards,
Derick
|
|
|
|
|