I would like to make some quantlib functionalities to be available from web applications, and I have started developing PHP extensions to do it. Obviously the idea is not to make all quantlib api available from PHP but yes to develop some modules with concrete functionalities.
As I have never used SWIG I'd like to know wich are main advantages/disadvantages to do it through SWIG.
Thanks!
The main advantage is that a boatload of functionality is already exposed through SWIG to other languages, so you can just run SWIG on the existing interfaces in PHP mode and you're likely to get something working right away (you might have to patch them in places, but I don't expect big problems). Note that the number of classes exposed can be a disadvantage, too: the resulting wrappers will probably be massive, so you might want to edit the interfaces and comment out what you don't need.
Another disadvantage is that, since SWIG is language-agnostic, the resulting wrappers might not be idiomatic PHP. I'm not familiar with the language, though, so I can't comment on that.
Either way, drop us a line on the mailing list if you want to make the extension available. If you go through SWIG, we can add your patches (if any) to the upstream distribution. If you develop a QuantLib PHP extension in any other way, we can at least link to it from the QuantLib site.
Related
I have an old flat file perl db that's part of an eCommerce site I want to migrate to a new php application.
Is it possible to read with php the "table" files have no file extension and seem not be just csv's or similar?
If I understand your question correctly, you have the kind of Perl database that's accessed with a so-called bound hash.
This uses technology generically known as dbm. The most recent implementation is gdbm, a GNU version, that's described here. http://www.gnu.org.ua/software/gdbm/ It's likely (but not 100% certain) that's the version used by the Perl infrastructure of your old app.
There's a PHP API with functions like dba_open() that also supports dbm variants. http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.dba.php . You should be able to handle that file of yours with it.
It's worth observing that this dba_ extension wasn't loaded in my php implementation until I enabled it explicitly. You may have to mess around with various dbm implementations until you find the one that matches. The three I know about are the original UNIX one, dbm, ndbm, and gdbm.
There are a hell lot of inbuilt PHP functions. I was wondering that after almost 2 and a half years of working as a software engineer I hardly use a little fraction of those. But all of them are defined and can be used with the default PHP installations.
I read somewhere in SO that PHP provides all these inbuilt things but doing similar things with languages like JAVA needs a lot of coding. Is that correct? I am not experienced in other languages much.
Also, am I correct to assume that a large portion of these functions are not used by any of the other inbuilt functions or anything (internal dependencies)? E.g. these functions pdf_fit_table(), gzopen() are needed only in case of PDF and gzip file related things respectively.
If so, then as advanced programmers, does PHP provide any option to us to selectively load them, based on the specific project requirements or more dynamically, based on a specific module? e.g. load PDF related functions only if I have PDF related tasks. If possible, at what level can it be done? If at the PHP installation level, then I think it is not possible in case of shared hosting. Is a better solution to this possible?
I am just speaking from a common sense point of view, we include files containing functions on a need basis.
Is it going to give a performance boost?
I am not much aware of the core libraries etc. of PHP. So, please shed some light.
Updates:
Thanks for the answers
#pygorex1 - The HipHop way is to optimize PHP overall. So, putting in very simple terms, if I am correct, if it was taking 1 second to run before then using HipHop it may make it 0.7 second. But in both the cases, the presence of those extra unnecessary defined functions are adding their overhead (say 0.1 second in first case and 0.07 sec in HipHop case). If so, then HipHop targets something else and does not answer my question. However, the other two points you gave say that all has to be done while compiling. So, it probably means if I compile with an extension then the function groups under that will be loaded every time . Then probably there is no further way of removing the inclusion? Some kind of everride?
#Tyler - I agree that it might be difficult to do what I am asking for but the reason is not what you are saying. It cannot be so difficult to find out the dependencies. Just applying common sense, I can say that functions like is_numeric(), is_array(), array_walk(), func_get_args() etc. are very basic ones and are probably called by many but there are easily distinguishable groups like the socket functions group containing e.g. socket_connect() which need not be included if not explicitly needed. The problem probably is that it needs to be specified while compiling, like pygorex1 has answered.
Concerning any potential performance boost - you're probably not going to notice it unless you're serving a ton of dynamic PHP pages. This road has been traveled before - take a look at HipHop, Facebook's tool to optimize PHP into C++. Utilizing byte code caches like APC and eAccelerator AND/OR rewriting your PHP code to cache intelligently with memcached will improve PHP performance far more than enabling/disabling certain PHP functions.
That having been said, there's two main ways to pare down the number of functions that PHP has available:
PHP compile-time options
Available when compiling PHP from source. One of the functions noted in the question gzopen() is part of the zlib extension and has to be enabled at compile time. There's quite a few built-in compile-time options.
PHP modules
These are loaded dynamically by PHP and are controlled by the php.ini config file under extensions - they are .dll files on Windows or .so files on Linux. A snippet from my development php.ini:
...
extension=php_bz2.dll
;extension=php_curl.dll
;extension=php_dba.dll
;extension=php_dblib.dll
extension=php_mbstring.dll
extension=php_exif.dll
extension=php_fileinfo.dll
extension=php_gd2.dll
...
There is dl() to load a PHP extension at runtime.
Example to load an extension dynamically:
if (!extension_loaded('sqlite')) {
$prefix = (PHP_SHLIB_SUFFIX === 'dll') ? 'php_' : '';
dl($prefix . 'sqlite.' . PHP_SHLIB_SUFFIX);
}
This is taken from http://php.net/manual/en/function.dl.php
The php function namespace debacle, is, well, exactly that.
No, there's no way selectively load them at run-time. Just because you don't call something, doesn't mean something you call doesn't call it.
Dont bother compiling out built-in functions. Learn about shared libraries and linux caching system. Those files(and functions) are basically always loaded and cached so it has very little impact on an application. As pygorex1 said, its better to use a good caching mechanism than crippling the PHP distribution on purpose.
#powtac: doing dl() as a way to dinamically load some libraries might acually slow down your app(depends on how many dl() you do, it might be better to have them always loaded in memory than loading them on request)
#Tyler Eaves: you may disable some function from being called actually. There's nothing preventing their loading though..
Also, hip-hop as far as i knwo actually compiles php code down to C/C++ code, and then compiles it. This has the BIG advantage of skipping the virtual machine, and php-specific upcodes and lots of overhead over a scripted language, but has the big disatvantage that its not a scripted language anymore.
I need to create a web application that tars files on a remote server then moves those files to another server. I am new to scripting languages and was wondering if there are advantages to php or perl for this type of application.
Not really. Both will get the job done just as good as the other. The bottleneck of both will be connecting to the remote server.
PHP was originally derived from Perl, so the syntax between the two are very similar. It's all a matter of taste.
PHP is nice because many Apache servers are setup to allow you to embed PHP code inside your HTML pages. This makes PHP very popular in building things like CMS systems and bulletin boards.
I personally think that the PHP syntax is sloppy. There's way too many specific functions and they're not clearly thought out. The syntax changes from one function to another. I guess it's part of PHP's group based philosophy where a lot of people add a lot of features. I also like Perl's use strict and use warnings pragmas which I find save me a lot of grief.
But, as I said, when it comes to webpage development, PHP is ahead of Perl.
(Yes, I know about modperl, but that's not usually installed in most Apache servers).
I'd say to go ahead and learn both. I believe the Perl books are some of the best written programming guides I've seen. I haven't been too thrilled with the PHP ones. Maybe its because Perl is just more established, so the documentation has been better defined.
Then again, if you're going to learn something, maybe you should try Python. I'm not a fan of Python, but its the up and coming language that most people are learning these days. Google uses Python extensively. And, don't forget Ruby which has the webbased Rails platform that's very popular.
By the way, what you want to do isn't part of the default language, but most languages have modules that are easily installable. For example, you'll need Archive::Tar and LWP for Perl. These can be downloaded from the CPAN module archive.
It's going to take you a while to pick up enough of any language to do what you want, so be patient and have fun.
You need this ssh extension http://php.net/manual/en/book.ssh2.php
It support calling ssh using ssh2_connect.
And you can bundle with tar, scp, or even rsync
I have a PHP class I want to convert to a PHP extension. I checked some tutorials (tuxradar's writing extensions, php.net's extending php, and zend's extension writing) and it's a bit complicated.
I found the article "How to write PHP extensions" (ed note: site is defunct) and I wanted to know if it is possible to use this to make it grab a PHP class from a certain path (say /home/website1/public_html/api/class.php), execute it and return the class instance.
This way it will be usable in other websites that are hosted on the same server – each can simply call the function and it will obtain its own instance.
Is that possible?
The question as I understand it now is, The user has a PHP class that they would like to share with multiple people, but does not want to share the source code.
There are many solutions to this, they generally invovle turning the PHP code into some kind of byte code, and using a PHP extension to run the byte code. I've never used any of these solutions, but I'm aware of the following:
phc is an open source compiler for PHP
Zend Guard
HipHop for PHP - I'm unsure about this, but Facebook recently released it so it might be worth a look.
I'm sure there are others. Just Google for PHP Compiler, or PHP Accelerator.
In one sentence: I don't believe so, I think its a lot more work than that.
No, there is not tool that can do that.
Anyway, what you want call be easily accomplished with auto_prepend_file. Just make that ini directive point to a PHP file that has the class definition, and then it will be available to all the applications.
If you don't want the users to be able to use the source, you can use one the several zend extensions that allow you to pre-compile the file and use it in that form.
You can extend underlying C library functions into PHP space by writing PHP extensions. However, i think in your case you don't need to write one.
I am aware that this is an old question (being from 2012) however the answer has changed and there is now a tool that can do this. Jim Thunderbirds PHP-to-C Extension toolset provides the means to take a simple class in one file all the way up to a complicated multi file multi-level namespaced framework and convert it to a C-extension that can then be installed into your PHP server.
While in many use cases doing so is not needed as the ordinary PHP code will work just as good in some cases significant performance improvements can be experienced. The information page shows that an ordinary class (deliberately designed to take a long time) took 16.802139997482 seconds as plain vanilla PHP, and 3.9628620147705 as a PHP extension built using the tool.
As an added advantage the tool also provides an additional feature. The ability to combine PHP code (to be converted to C) and native C code within the same extension which can produce even greater performance enhancements. The same example used above only tool 0.14397192001343 seconds when much of the intensive code was moved to a bubble sort C code and simply calling it from within the PHP code.
As a side note functionally to the end developers using the code using the extension is very much similar to having the files manually included in the PHP file being developed except it doesn't have to be specifically included as it is done through the PHP extensions component.
(Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with this developer but am glad to have come across it as it is thus far working for converting some of my intensive classes into PHP extensions without needing to know C).
I'm trying to accomplish a task and turns out that the code I need is packaged as a PHP extension, which according to what I've been told means I have to have root access to install it (I'm on shared hosting so that's a bit of a problem.
I'll solve this problem later, but for now I'm trying to understand the difference between an extension, a library, and a class. Is it more of a packaging thing that could be overridden and repackaged a different way, or is there a valid architectural reasoning behind it?
Also when releasing your own code, what makes you decide to release as library vs. class vs. extension? or do you go with whichever sounds better?
thanks in advance.
P.S. If you must know which extension I'm talking about, it's Libpuzzle, but that's really beside the point, my question is more general.
An extension is a pice of code programmed in C which will be included into the PHP core when PHP starts. Normally you have some more native functions available after including a extension. For example a zip functionality.
A class is a abstract pice of PHP code which solves common tasks. For example sending emails. You can find some common classes at pear.php.net.
A library is a collection of PHP classes wich solve more generic tasks for example buliding HTML forms AND sending emails. The Zend Framework is a framework which consists of many, many PHP classes.
Normally extension features can be programmed in PHP. For example the PEAR::Compat class. Often you will find the functionality you need as a PHP class available. I'm sure the stackoverflow readers will supply you with ideas where to find a specific PHP class.
Extensions are low-level. Usually written in C/C++, and compiled into native-code shared libraries, they interact with the Zend Engine directly. It has pros and cons, main advantages being the speed and more control; and main disadvantages - they are harder to install, and require compilation (and that requires a compiler and PHP headers); it's not true they require root access though - you only need ability to use custom php.ini (or dl() function, but I see they deprecated it for some reason).
Libraries/classes are high-level and interpreted. If you don't know if you need to write extension, then you probably don't. About what classes are - read about OOP. A library is a reusable collection of code (most commonly in form of functions/classes).
Some libraries (including libpuzzle) also include a command-line tool. So if you're unable to use the PHP library due to your shared hosting environment, maybe you can compile the command-line tool. Then you can run it from PHP using something like exec. It will be slower and require more memory than a library, but it might get the job done. Of course, many hosts also have restrictions on commands like exec, so this might not work either.