Re: Fix for bug #63437

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013, Gustavo Lopes wrote: > On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:36:41 +0100, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Anatol Belski wrote: > > > > > I've reworked the patch from > > > > > > http://nebm.ist.utl.pt/~glopes/misc/date_period_interval_ser.diff > > > (mentioned by tony2001) for bug #63437, that seems to fix the > > > issue. That patch was ported back to 5.3 and adapted to the > > > current 5.4+. Both variants are posted to the ticket. > > > > Serializing this as a base64 encoded variant of some binary data is > > not a good thing. If you want to serialize, it needs to output the > > same thigns that allow users to create the period or interval. > > I would agree in principle, but, as I explained before, there is a > problem. The DatePeriod class has 64-bit integers in its internal > structure. The PHP integer type cannot (in general) represent that > data. So the general method of getting the object data via > get_properties and serializing (and then using __set_state to convert > the array back) does not work unless you represent those 64-bit > integers with some non-integer type and do the conversions. Then store them as strings or another format that makes it possible to get a 64bit timestamp back. Of course, I don't think it makes too much sense to serialize a Period as it's more of a transient iterator wrapper. For an interval, you'd want to serialise the original input vectors as well... not an easy task (unless you store the original). cheers, Derick