Re: Binary Safety and Sockets
| From: | Hans Zaunere | Date: | Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:53:56 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Binary Safety and Sockets | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-117058@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hrmm...
Well the base64_* bit would work for the payload, but I'm working with
raw sockets (ICMP at the moment) and of course the header needs to be
really binary.
Are the socket_*() planned on being binary safe in the near future?
Anyone do traceroute/ping in PHP yet?
Hans
--- Evan Nemerson <evan@coeus-group.com> wrote:
> Don't assume either way, especially since sockets are currently
> experimental.
> If you're worried it isn't binary safe, you could base64_encode() and
>
> base64_decode everything... Extra bandwidth, but at least it will
> work.
>
>
>
> On Friday 20 September 2002 10:10, Hans Zaunere wrote:
> > I'm working with the socket_* function (--enable-sockets) and have
> been
> > seeing some wierd issues. I'm guessing it has to do with
> > socket_recvfrom/sendto etc not being binary safe. This is 4.2.3 on
> > FreeBSD 4.6.2.
> >
> > My question is: what functions, specifically socket_* functions,
> are
> > binary safe? How can I tell? When will they be?
> >
> > And, while we're on the subject, in general, are PHP functions
> binary
> > safe? Should I assume functions aren't binary safe unless noted
> > otherwise - or should I assume the inverse?
> >
> > If anyone could shed some light on this, I'd appreciate it.
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com