Re: Fix for bug #63437
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013, Anatol Belski wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 21:57 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:36:41 +0100, Derick Rethans <[email protected]> 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.
>
> So base64 seems to be only the doubtful point. Thriving to fix that,
> what if we could bring it in dependency of libgmp to serialize and
> read as strings (and maybe disable serialization otherwise)?
Why do you need libgmp for that‽
cheers,
Derick
Thread (15 messages)