I want to use a particular PHP extension (php_curl.dll). I have tried to
enable it by uncommenting the following line in php.ini:
extension=php_curl.dll
then restarting the Apache server.

Unfortunately I get the following message in error.log:
PHP Warning: Unknown(): Unable to load dynamic library 'C:\\Program
Files\\php-4.4.6-Win32\\extensions\\php_curl.dll' - The specified module
could not be found.\r\n in Unknown on line 0

I get the same problem with some other extensions as well -- not just cURL.
E.g. I have tried enabling these for comparison:
extension=php_iconv.dll
extension=php_ifx.dll
These give the same error message (apart from the DLL name of course).

However many extensions seem to load without error, e.g.:
extension=php_mbstring.dll
extension=php_bz2.dll
extension=php_cpdf.dll
extension=php_db.dll
extension=php_hyperwave.dll

The extensions path is definitely there in php.ini:
extension_dir = "C:\Program Files\php-4.4.6-Win32\extensions"
(I've tried it with and without quotes.)

* The DLLs are definitely all there in the extensions folder -- I can see
them in Explorer!
* I've tried using a different extensions folder (e.g. c:\php). No
difference.
* I know that, generally, PHP *can* see the DLLs in the extensions folder.
For example, if I enable the php_bz2 extension but rename the DLL, it gives
an error. If I then fix the filename, it works again.
* I've tried copying php_curl.dll to C:\Windows\System32, as people have
suggested in various posts on the internet. No difference.

I'm running Apache 2 with PHP 4.4.6 on Windows XP.

Other than this particular problem, everything seems to be fine with my
configuration. I'm teaching myself PHP and my scripts are working as
expected. I just can't get this darn extension to load! Suggestions highly
welcome!

Thanks in advance.

On Mar 6, 10:56 am, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> I want to use a particular PHP extension (php_curl.dll). I have tried to
> enable it by uncommenting the following line in php.ini:
> extension=php_curl.dll
> then restarting the Apache server.
>
> Unfortunately I get the following message in error.log:
> PHP Warning: Unknown(): Unable to load dynamic library 'C:\\Program
> Files\\php-4.4.6-Win32\\extensions\\php_curl.dll' - The specified module
> could not be found.\r\n in Unknown on line 0
>
> I get the same problem with some other extensions as well -- not just cURL.
> E.g. I have tried enabling these for comparison:
> extension=php_iconv.dll
> extension=php_ifx.dll
> These give the same error message (apart from the DLL name of course).
>
> However many extensions seem to load without error, e.g.:
> extension=php_mbstring.dll
> extension=php_bz2.dll
> extension=php_cpdf.dll
> extension=php_db.dll
> extension=php_hyperwave.dll
>
> The extensions path is definitely there in php.ini:
> extension_dir = "C:\Program Files\php-4.4.6-Win32\extensions"
> (I've tried it with and without quotes.)
>
> * The DLLs are definitely all there in the extensions folder -- I can see
> them in Explorer!
> * I've tried using a different extensions folder (e.g. c:\php). No
> difference.
> * I know that, generally, PHP *can* see the DLLs in the extensions folder.
> For example, if I enable the php_bz2 extension but rename the DLL, it gives
> an error. If I then fix the filename, it works again.
> * I've tried copying php_curl.dll to C:\Windows\System32, as people have
> suggested in various posts on the internet. No difference.
>
> I'm running Apache 2 with PHP 4.4.6 on Windows XP.
>
> Other than this particular problem, everything seems to be fine with my
> configuration. I'm teaching myself PHP and my scripts are working as
> expected. I just can't get this darn extension to load! Suggestions highly
> welcome!
>
> Thanks in advance.

have you tried it using forward slashes, the Apache manual
specifically states that all slashes in the conf should face forward,
to avoid unpredictable results in windows. however this might still
not solve your issue.

> have you tried it using forward slashes

Thanks for the suggestion, however I tried that and it made no difference.
As far as I'm aware, it's okay to use backslashes in php.ini (in fact the
comments seem to suggest this is correct).

> the Apache manual
> specifically states that all slashes in the conf should face forward,

Indeed, all the paths in my httpd.conf file do use forward slashes.

Any more ideas? I'm completely stuck at the moment. :(

"LiquidEyes" <news [at] liquideyes.net> wrote in message
news:45ed73d4$1_1 [at] mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
|> have you tried it using forward slashes
|
| Thanks for the suggestion, however I tried that and it made no difference.
| As far as I'm aware, it's okay to use backslashes in php.ini (in fact the
| comments seem to suggest this is correct).
|
| > the Apache manual
| > specifically states that all slashes in the conf should face forward,
|
| Indeed, all the paths in my httpd.conf file do use forward slashes.
|
| Any more ideas? I'm completely stuck at the moment. :(

usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows servers. does
IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and the
dll's?

On Mar 6, 2:39 pm, "Steve" <no.... [at] example.com> wrote:
> "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote in message
>
> news:45ed73d4$1_1 [at] mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> |> have you tried it using forward slashes
> |
> | Thanks for the suggestion, however I tried that and it made no difference.
> | As far as I'm aware, it's okay to use backslashes in php.ini (in fact the
> | comments seem to suggest this is correct).
> |
> | > the Apache manual
> | > specifically states that all slashes in the conf should face forward,
> |
> | Indeed, all the paths in my httpd.conf file do use forward slashes.
> |
> | Any more ideas? I'm completely stuck at the moment. :(
>
> usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows servers. does
> IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and the
> dll's?

if you're running apache but not as a special user, have you checked
that the module version is consistent with the version of php you are
running,
you might for instance have decided to run php as a module and might
have chosen to run a later version...
If I were you I would grab filemon from sysinternals on the microsoft
site and run it while apache is trying to load the extnesion, if you
can see that the paths are correct in filemon - that apache is getting
module and yet you still get the erro, then perhaps it is a version
clash.
At least you can get odd errors like this when you use a newer module
than the version of php you are running, or vice versa etc..

> usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows servers.
> does
> IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and the
> dll's?

Hmm interesting... thanks for the suggestion.

I don't really follow the bit about 'IUSR_<computer name>'.

I'm just running Windows XP Home and I'm the main (admin) user. I didn't set
up any special permissions for the PHP folder. I just unzipped the PHP
archive into my Program Files folder. I've just tried putting the PHP folder
somewhere else rather than Program Files, but it seems to make no
difference.

All folders on my hard drive seem to be read-only by default. Not only that,
but if you remove the read-only attribute, next time you look at the folder
properties again the read-only attribute has magically reappeared! I think
this is just the way Windows XP works (?)

The actual files in the 'dlls' and 'extensions' folders are not read-only. I
can't think of any reason why the DLLs shouldn't be able to create files
inside the extensions folder if they wanted to...? Presumably what you're
hinting at is that the extensions might need to create temporary files?
(which I suppose would explain why some extensions work and some don't...)

Returning to your suggestion regarding permissions: could it be that PHP
and/or its extensions have less privileges than I do as the user/admin? I've
checked Apache on the list of Windows services, and it is set to log on as
'local system', so I can't see any obvious reason why PHP should have
difficulties.

On 6 Mar, 18:22, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> > usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows servers.
> > does
> > IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and the
> > dll's?
>
> Hmm interesting... thanks for the suggestion.
>
> I don't really follow the bit about 'IUSR_<computer name>'.
>
> I'm just running Windows XP Home and I'm the main (admin) user. I didn't set
> up any special permissions for the PHP folder. I just unzipped the PHP
> archive into my Program Files folder. I've just tried putting the PHP folder
> somewhere else rather than Program Files, but it seems to make no
> difference.
>
> All folders on my hard drive seem to be read-only by default. Not only that,
> but if you remove the read-only attribute, next time you look at the folder
> properties again the read-only attribute has magically reappeared! I think
> this is just the way Windows XP works (?)
>
> The actual files in the 'dlls' and 'extensions' folders are not read-only. I
> can't think of any reason why the DLLs shouldn't be able to create files
> inside the extensions folder if they wanted to...? Presumably what you're
> hinting at is that the extensions might need to create temporary files?
> (which I suppose would explain why some extensions work and some don't...)
>
> Returning to your suggestion regarding permissions: could it be that PHP
> and/or its extensions have less privileges than I do as the user/admin? I've
> checked Apache on the list of Windows services, and it is set to log on as
> 'local system', so I can't see any obvious reason why PHP should have
> difficulties.



permissions isnt your issue if your on home
in fact im not even sure if home can be cajolled into setting
permissions as I think the option is not there.
Apache runs as SYSTEM thats right, no worries. dlls dont need to
create temporary files generally, so you're ok there.
The "read only" flag is partially greyed - thats normal, they arent
read only however - its just the way xp shows the setting.

I think it is either a faulty module - you are using a rather old
version of php, or perhaps you have a version already cluttering up
your system32 folder - have you checked there for repeats of the dlls
php uses?

Have you checked
http://uk2.php.net/manual/en/ref.curl.php
for hints on the files that need to be in your path, have you checked
your path includes the places where php looks for extensions?

I dont think this module requires dependencies but I am not 100% (more
like 80%) sometimes if a module doesnt load it is because it cannot
find its dependcies,
have you thought of using the latest version of a fully configured
setup after backingup your current setup and deleting the PATH info
for the current setup, it sounds like you would find it easier to
start with XAMPP. I suggest this alot, it is a preety good start for
people who need a development setup with all the bells and whistles,
but run into too many problems if they try to start off by installing
all the components manually.

good luck,m

"shimmyshack" <matt.farey [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173207520.196454.105960 [at] 64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
| On 6 Mar, 18:22, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
| > > usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows servers.
| > > does
| > > IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and the
| > > dll's?
| >
| > Hmm interesting... thanks for the suggestion.
| >
| > I don't really follow the bit about 'IUSR_<computer name>'.
| >
| > I'm just running Windows XP Home and I'm the main (admin) user. I didn't
set
| > up any special permissions for the PHP folder. I just unzipped the PHP
| > archive into my Program Files folder. I've just tried putting the PHP
folder
| > somewhere else rather than Program Files, but it seems to make no
| > difference.
| >
| > All folders on my hard drive seem to be read-only by default. Not only
that,
| > but if you remove the read-only attribute, next time you look at the
folder
| > properties again the read-only attribute has magically reappeared! I
think
| > this is just the way Windows XP works (?)
| >
| > The actual files in the 'dlls' and 'extensions' folders are not
read-only. I
| > can't think of any reason why the DLLs shouldn't be able to create files
| > inside the extensions folder if they wanted to...? Presumably what
you're
| > hinting at is that the extensions might need to create temporary files?
| > (which I suppose would explain why some extensions work and some
don't...)
| >
| > Returning to your suggestion regarding permissions: could it be that PHP
| > and/or its extensions have less privileges than I do as the user/admin?
I've
| > checked Apache on the list of Windows services, and it is set to log on
as
| > 'local system', so I can't see any obvious reason why PHP should have
| > difficulties.
|
|
|
| permissions isnt your issue if your on home
| in fact im not even sure if home can be cajolled into setting
| permissions as I think the option is not there.
| Apache runs as SYSTEM thats right, no worries. dlls dont need to
| create temporary files generally, so you're ok there.
| The "read only" flag is partially greyed - thats normal, they arent
| read only however - its just the way xp shows the setting.

yes, follow up on the module suggestion(s). however, permissions *could* be
an issue...and usually *is*. i'm not sure that he is using apache. if he's
running iis, he should give wrx permissions to the IUSR_<computer name here>
on his php root path and set subfolders to inherit those permissions. the
IUSR_ in a system user account, and while iis may well farm off the php
script to the php.exe, php does *not* get full system access. IUSR_ is
limited in what it can do...you have to specifically grant it permissions
for certain activities.

it's just a thought. i've had plenty a headache configuring windows server
that stemmed from this issue.

cheers.

On 6 Mar, 19:12, "Steve" <no.... [at] example.com> wrote:
> "shimmyshack" <matt.fa... [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173207520.196454.105960 [at] 64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> | On 6 Mar, 18:22, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> | > > usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows servers.
> | > > does
> | > > IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and the
> | > > dll's?
> | >
> | > Hmm interesting... thanks for the suggestion.
> | >
> | > I don't really follow the bit about 'IUSR_<computer name>'.
> | >
> | > I'm just running Windows XP Home and I'm the main (admin) user. I didn't
> set
> | > up any special permissions for the PHP folder. I just unzipped the PHP
> | > archive into my Program Files folder. I've just tried putting the PHP
> folder
> | > somewhere else rather than Program Files, but it seems to make no
> | > difference.
> | >
> | > All folders on my hard drive seem to be read-only by default. Not only
> that,
> | > but if you remove the read-only attribute, next time you look at the
> folder
> | > properties again the read-only attribute has magically reappeared! I
> think
> | > this is just the way Windows XP works (?)
> | >
> | > The actual files in the 'dlls' and 'extensions' folders are not
> read-only. I
> | > can't think of any reason why the DLLs shouldn't be able to create files
> | > inside the extensions folder if they wanted to...? Presumably what
> you're
> | > hinting at is that the extensions might need to create temporary files?
> | > (which I suppose would explain why some extensions work and some
> don't...)
> | >
> | > Returning to your suggestion regarding permissions: could it be that PHP
> | > and/or its extensions have less privileges than I do as the user/admin?
> I've
> | > checked Apache on the list of Windows services, and it is set to log on
> as
> | > 'local system', so I can't see any obvious reason why PHP should have
> | > difficulties.
> |
> |
> |
> | permissions isnt your issue if your on home
> | in fact im not even sure if home can be cajolled into setting
> | permissions as I think the option is not there.
> | Apache runs as SYSTEM thats right, no worries. dlls dont need to
> | create temporary files generally, so you're ok there.
> | The "read only" flag is partially greyed - thats normal, they arent
> | read only however - its just the way xp shows the setting.
>
> yes, follow up on the module suggestion(s). however, permissions *could* be
> an issue...and usually *is*. i'm not sure that he is using apache. if he's
> running iis, he should give wrx permissions to the IUSR_<computer name here>
> on his php root path and set subfolders to inherit those permissions. the
> IUSR_ in a system user account, and while iis may well farm off the php
> script to the php.exe, php does *not* get full system access. IUSR_ is
> limited in what it can do...you have to specifically grant it permissions
> for certain activities.
>
> it's just a thought. i've had plenty a headache configuring windows server
> that stemmed from this issue.
>
> cheers.

hi steve, I think i spotted some mention of apache running as local
system account in one of the posts, thats why i went down that route,
and windows home! - dont even go there. I think you could be right if
they were running IIS though, its just that from memory theres a
setting buried somewhere in the tools->folder options-view that says
something like "use simnp[le file sharing (recommended)" word to that
effect anyway which you have to uncheck on windows XP PRO in order for
it to start allowing you to grant user permissions at directory level.
I dont know the XP permissions very well though and you could be
right! :)

On 6 Mar, 19:20, "shimmyshack" <matt.fa... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mar, 19:12, "Steve" <no.... [at] example.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "shimmyshack" <matt.fa... [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1173207520.196454.105960 [at] 64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com.. .
> > | On 6 Mar, 18:22, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> > | > > usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows servers.
> > | > > does
> > | > > IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and the
> > | > > dll's?
> > | >
> > | > Hmm interesting... thanks for the suggestion.
> > | >
> > | > I don't really follow the bit about 'IUSR_<computer name>'.
> > | >
> > | > I'm just running Windows XP Home and I'm the main (admin) user. I didn't
> > set
> > | > up any special permissions for the PHP folder. I just unzipped the PHP
> > | > archive into my Program Files folder. I've just tried putting the PHP
> > folder
> > | > somewhere else rather than Program Files, but it seems to make no
> > | > difference.
> > | >
> > | > All folders on my hard drive seem to be read-only by default. Not only
> > that,
> > | > but if you remove the read-only attribute, next time you look at the
> > folder
> > | > properties again the read-only attribute has magically reappeared! I
> > think
> > | > this is just the way Windows XP works (?)
> > | >
> > | > The actual files in the 'dlls' and 'extensions' folders are not
> > read-only. I
> > | > can't think of any reason why the DLLs shouldn't be able to create files
> > | > inside the extensions folder if they wanted to...? Presumably what
> > you're
> > | > hinting at is that the extensions might need to create temporary files?
> > | > (which I suppose would explain why some extensions work and some
> > don't...)
> > | >
> > | > Returning to your suggestion regarding permissions: could it be that PHP
> > | > and/or its extensions have less privileges than I do as the user/admin?
> > I've
> > | > checked Apache on the list of Windows services, and it is set to log on
> > as
> > | > 'local system', so I can't see any obvious reason why PHP should have
> > | > difficulties.
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | permissions isnt your issue if your on home
> > | in fact im not even sure if home can be cajolled into setting
> > | permissions as I think the option is not there.
> > | Apache runs as SYSTEM thats right, no worries. dlls dont need to
> > | create temporary files generally, so you're ok there.
> > | The "read only" flag is partially greyed - thats normal, they arent
> > | read only however - its just the way xp shows the setting.
>
> > yes, follow up on the module suggestion(s). however, permissions *could* be
> > an issue...and usually *is*. i'm not sure that he is using apache. if he's
> > running iis, he should give wrx permissions to the IUSR_<computer name here>
> > on his php root path and set subfolders to inherit those permissions. the
> > IUSR_ in a system user account, and while iis may well farm off the php
> > script to the php.exe, php does *not* get full system access. IUSR_ is
> > limited in what it can do...you have to specifically grant it permissions
> > for certain activities.
>
> > it's just a thought. i've had plenty a headache configuring windows server
> > that stemmed from this issue.
>
> > cheers.
>
> hi steve, I think i spotted some mention of apache running as local
> system account in one of the posts, thats why i went down that route,
> and windows home! - dont even go there. I think you could be right if
> they were running IIS though, its just that from memory theres a
> setting buried somewhere in the tools->folder options-view that says
> something like "use simnp[le file sharing (recommended)" word to that
> effect anyway which you have to uncheck on windows XP PRO in order for
> it to start allowing you to grant user permissions at directory level.
> I dont know the XP permissions very well though and you could be
> right! :)

oops i should add that I dont think that this option exists in windows
home, though it does in PRO, so the persmissions controls are limited.
Ive never used home though - apart from helping friends whose home xp
cant see devices!

On 6 Mar, 19:24, "shimmyshack" <matt.fa... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mar, 19:20, "shimmyshack" <matt.fa... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Mar, 19:12, "Steve" <no.... [at] example.com> wrote:
>
> > > "shimmyshack" <matt.fa... [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1173207520.196454.105960 [at] 64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com.. .
> > > | On 6 Mar, 18:22, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> > > | > > usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows servers.
> > > | > > does
> > > | > > IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and the
> > > | > > dll's?
> > > | >
> > > | > Hmm interesting... thanks for the suggestion.
> > > | >
> > > | > I don't really follow the bit about 'IUSR_<computer name>'.
> > > | >
> > > | > I'm just running Windows XP Home and I'm the main (admin) user. I didn't
> > > set
> > > | > up any special permissions for the PHP folder. I just unzipped the PHP
> > > | > archive into my Program Files folder. I've just tried putting the PHP
> > > folder
> > > | > somewhere else rather than Program Files, but it seems to make no
> > > | > difference.
> > > | >
> > > | > All folders on my hard drive seem to be read-only by default. Not only
> > > that,
> > > | > but if you remove the read-only attribute, next time you look at the
> > > folder
> > > | > properties again the read-only attribute has magically reappeared! I
> > > think
> > > | > this is just the way Windows XP works (?)
> > > | >
> > > | > The actual files in the 'dlls' and 'extensions' folders are not
> > > read-only. I
> > > | > can't think of any reason why the DLLs shouldn't be able to create files
> > > | > inside the extensions folder if they wanted to...? Presumably what
> > > you're
> > > | > hinting at is that the extensions might need to create temporary files?
> > > | > (which I suppose would explain why some extensions work and some
> > > don't...)
> > > | >
> > > | > Returning to your suggestion regarding permissions: could it be that PHP
> > > | > and/or its extensions have less privileges than I do as the user/admin?
> > > I've
> > > | > checked Apache on the list of Windows services, and it is set to log on
> > > as
> > > | > 'local system', so I can't see any obvious reason why PHP should have
> > > | > difficulties.
> > > |
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | permissions isnt your issue if your on home
> > > | in fact im not even sure if home can be cajolled into setting
> > > | permissions as I think the option is not there.
> > > | Apache runs as SYSTEM thats right, no worries. dlls dont need to
> > > | create temporary files generally, so you're ok there.
> > > | The "read only" flag is partially greyed - thats normal, they arent
> > > | read only however - its just the way xp shows the setting.
>
> > > yes, follow up on the module suggestion(s). however, permissions *could* be
> > > an issue...and usually *is*. i'm not sure that he is using apache. if he's
> > > running iis, he should give wrx permissions to the IUSR_<computer name here>
> > > on his php root path and set subfolders to inherit those permissions. the
> > > IUSR_ in a system user account, and while iis may well farm off the php
> > > script to the php.exe, php does *not* get full system access. IUSR_ is
> > > limited in what it can do...you have to specifically grant it permissions
> > > for certain activities.
>
> > > it's just a thought. i've had plenty a headache configuring windows server
> > > that stemmed from this issue.
>
> > > cheers.
>
> > hi steve, I think i spotted some mention of apache running as local
> > system account in one of the posts, thats why i went down that route,
> > and windows home! - dont even go there. I think you could be right if
> > they were running IIS though, its just that from memory theres a
> > setting buried somewhere in the tools->folder options-view that says
> > something like "use simnp[le file sharing (recommended)" word to that
> > effect anyway which you have to uncheck on windows XP PRO in order for
> > it to start allowing you to grant user permissions at directory level.
> > I dont know the XP permissions very well though and you could be
> > right! :)
>
> oops i should add that I dont think that this option exists in windows
> home, though it does in PRO, so the persmissions controls are limited.
> Ive never used home though - apart from helping friends whose home xp
> cant see devices!

It has just occured to me LiquidEyes, yuo /are/ using xampp!
So what you have done is probably to run php 5 but point it at the
php4 extension dir!
Stick to 5 unless for some reason you need the out of date 4.

"shimmyshack" <matt.farey [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173208833.205379.61470 [at] t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
| On 6 Mar, 19:12, "Steve" <no.... [at] example.com> wrote:
| > "shimmyshack" <matt.fa... [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| > news:1173207520.196454.105960 [at] 64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
| > | On 6 Mar, 18:22, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
| > | > > usually it's to do with directory/file permissions on windows
servers.
| > | > > does
| > | > > IUSR_<computer name> have permissions to wrx the extension dir and
the
| > | > > dll's?
| > | >
| > | > Hmm interesting... thanks for the suggestion.
| > | >
| > | > I don't really follow the bit about 'IUSR_<computer name>'.
| > | >
| > | > I'm just running Windows XP Home and I'm the main (admin) user. I
didn't
| > set
| > | > up any special permissions for the PHP folder. I just unzipped the
PHP
| > | > archive into my Program Files folder. I've just tried putting the
PHP
| > folder
| > | > somewhere else rather than Program Files, but it seems to make no
| > | > difference.
| > | >
| > | > All folders on my hard drive seem to be read-only by default. Not
only
| > that,
| > | > but if you remove the read-only attribute, next time you look at the
| > folder
| > | > properties again the read-only attribute has magically reappeared! I
| > think
| > | > this is just the way Windows XP works (?)
| > | >
| > | > The actual files in the 'dlls' and 'extensions' folders are not
| > read-only. I
| > | > can't think of any reason why the DLLs shouldn't be able to create
files
| > | > inside the extensions folder if they wanted to...? Presumably what
| > you're
| > | > hinting at is that the extensions might need to create temporary
files?
| > | > (which I suppose would explain why some extensions work and some
| > don't...)
| > | >
| > | > Returning to your suggestion regarding permissions: could it be that
PHP
| > | > and/or its extensions have less privileges than I do as the
user/admin?
| > I've
| > | > checked Apache on the list of Windows services, and it is set to log
on
| > as
| > | > 'local system', so I can't see any obvious reason why PHP should
have
| > | > difficulties.
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | permissions isnt your issue if your on home
| > | in fact im not even sure if home can be cajolled into setting
| > | permissions as I think the option is not there.
| > | Apache runs as SYSTEM thats right, no worries. dlls dont need to
| > | create temporary files generally, so you're ok there.
| > | The "read only" flag is partially greyed - thats normal, they arent
| > | read only however - its just the way xp shows the setting.
| >
| > yes, follow up on the module suggestion(s). however, permissions *could*
be
| > an issue...and usually *is*. i'm not sure that he is using apache. if
he's
| > running iis, he should give wrx permissions to the IUSR_<computer name
here>
| > on his php root path and set subfolders to inherit those permissions.
the
| > IUSR_ in a system user account, and while iis may well farm off the php
| > script to the php.exe, php does *not* get full system access. IUSR_ is
| > limited in what it can do...you have to specifically grant it
permissions
| > for certain activities.
| >
| > it's just a thought. i've had plenty a headache configuring windows
server
| > that stemmed from this issue.
| >
| > cheers.
|
| hi steve, I think i spotted some mention of apache running as local
| system account in one of the posts, thats why i went down that route,
| and windows home! - dont even go there.

i'll not go there. :)

> It has just occured to me LiquidEyes, yuo /are/ using xampp!

I've never heard of xampp before! I just downloaded a full binary archive of
php-4.4.6-Win32 (which I think is the newest version of PHP4?)

The version of cURL is the one that came with it -- it was already there in
the extensions directory. So presumably there should be no question of
mismatched versions.

On 6 Mar, 22:14, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> > It has just occured to me LiquidEyes, yuo /are/ using xampp!
>
> I've never heard of xampp before! I just downloaded a full binary archive of
> php-4.4.6-Win32 (which I think is the newest version of PHP4?)
>
> The version of cURL is the one that came with it -- it was already there in
> the extensions directory. So presumably there should be no question of
> mismatched versions.

not neccessarily, some modules can indeed be broken, but anyway, did
you check the files that cURL needs are there, you seem to have just
got stuck, what have you tried doing, have you downloaded a new
binary, have you played with its position in teh file system.
If you have never heard of xampp before, apachefriends.de you can get
a complete install and it will just _work_ modules and all - you can
choose php4, but obviously this is not recommended.
Yeah PHP4 - it might be the newest v4, but PHP6 is just round the
corner, supporting unicode etc... that will make even PHP5 obselete!
It's the latest release that drives development; rather than tying up
people with "old" problems why not push on with new stuff, all this
will soon be yesterday's news.
The day PHP6 comes out it will be on dev box here, then I guess it
will be recoding time - and reporting the bugs of course.

> Yeah PHP4 - it might be the newest v4, but PHP6 is just round the
> corner, supporting unicode etc... that will make even PHP5 obselete!

I do appreciate the advice.

For some reason I thought PHP4 was kinda like Apache v1.3. I.e. old, but
stable and still maintained. I guess not. :D

Also I noticed a few web hosts still only seem to support PHP4 (I guess this
will may them relics in your book!) so, since I'm not using any of the
special features of PHP5 (yet) I thought it would be silly to narrow down my
hosting options unnecessarily. I didn't want to write something and later
find out it wasn't backwards compatible. But I do take your point. :)

Thanks to both you and Steve for all your suggestions. Plenty more things to
try tomorrow! And it should be easy to install PHP5 and/or xampp to see if
they solve my problems.
Cheers.

LiquidEyes <news [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:

>> Yeah PHP4 - it might be the newest v4, but PHP6 is just round the
>> corner, supporting unicode etc... that will make even PHP5 obselete!
>
> I do appreciate the advice.
>
> For some reason I thought PHP4 was kinda like Apache v1.3. I.e. old, but
> stable and still maintained. I guess not. :D


Actually, it is for the most part. No problems with cURL in 4.4.2 here.
Latest release was 4.4.6, of 01-03-2007. You're not going to tell me
that's to old are you?

> Also I noticed a few web hosts still only seem to support PHP4 (I guess
> this
> will may them relics in your book!) so, since I'm not using any of the
> special features of PHP5 (yet) I thought it would be silly to narrow
> down my
> hosting options unnecessarily. I didn't want to write something and later
> find out it wasn't backwards compatible. But I do take your point. :)

Actually my experience with hosters in the Netherlands is that most of
them still use PHP4 by default.

--
Rik Wasmus
Posted on Usenet, not any forum you might see this in.
Ask Smart Questions: http://tinyurl.com/anel

On Mar 6, 10:52 pm, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> > Yeah PHP4 - it might be the newest v4, but PHP6 is just round the
> > corner, supporting unicode etc... that will make even PHP5 obselete!
>
> I do appreciate the advice.
>
> For some reason I thought PHP4 was kinda like Apache v1.3. I.e. old, but
> stable and still maintained. I guess not. :D
>
> Also I noticed a few web hosts still only seem to support PHP4 (I guess this
> will may them relics in your book!) so, since I'm not using any of the
> special features of PHP5 (yet) I thought it would be silly to narrow down my
> hosting options unnecessarily. I didn't want to write something and later
> find out it wasn't backwards compatible. But I do take your point. :)
>
> Thanks to both you and Steve for all your suggestions. Plenty more things to
> try tomorrow! And it should be easy to install PHP5 and/or xampp to see if
> they solve my problems.
> Cheers.

you are right if you need php4 use it, but be aware that some of the
knowledge you will get learning php4 will be unlearned in php5 and 6,
xampp does have 4 and 5 and a handy "switch" batch file so you can
choose between them which is nice.
I dont mean to suggest that using php4 is not "correct" but it /does/
help the community push forward if people use the most up2date
version, and any /decent/ hosting company supports php5, however there
are loads around who still don't and they should be avoided, again to
push the whole thing onwards towards better features!
have a good evening!

On Mar 6, 10:52 pm, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> > Yeah PHP4 - it might be the newest v4, but PHP6 is just round the
> > corner, supporting unicode etc... that will make even PHP5 obselete!
>
> I do appreciate the advice.
>
> For some reason I thought PHP4 was kinda like Apache v1.3. I.e. old, but
> stable and still maintained. I guess not. :D
>
for instance, JSON is a core part of PHP5, so no need to load extra
modules, or instantiate classes, the XML support in php5 is better
than php4, and of course the class structure is better, although still
not what Java purists want, we are all hoping that PHP6 will provide a
"pure" implementation with things like namespaces etc... when that
happens PHP will become even greater, and much easier to use in many
ways. I still have PHP4 applications based aroun huge 3000 line long
classes, for things that are now core PHP5, eventually I want to be
able to hold my head up hight when I say I use PHP, cos at the moment
even Ruby programmers sneer at me!

shimmyshack <matt.farey [at] gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 6, 10:52 pm, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
>> > Yeah PHP4 - it might be the newest v4, but PHP6 is just round the
>> > corner, supporting unicode etc... that will make even PHP5 obselete!
>>
>> I do appreciate the advice.
>>
>> For some reason I thought PHP4 was kinda like Apache v1.3. I.e. old, but
>> stable and still maintained. I guess not. :D
>>
> for instance, JSON is a core part of PHP5, so no need to load extra
> modules, or instantiate classes, the XML support in php5 is better
> than php4, and of course the class structure is better, although still
> not what Java purists want, we are all hoping that PHP6 will provide a
> "pure" implementation with things like namespaces etc... when that
> happens PHP will become even greater, and much easier to use in many
> ways.

Could very well be, and I'd welcome it. I'm a little concerned about the
footprint though. It's a little bit on the big site as it is. And I'm
certainly no Java fan :P

--
Rik Wasmus
Posted on Usenet, not any forum you might see this in.
Ask Smart Questions: http://tinyurl.com/anel

> Actually, it is for the most part. No problems with cURL in 4.4.2 here.
> Latest release was 4.4.6, of 01-03-2007. You're not going to tell me
> that's to old are you?

Yup I'm running 4.4.6.

I was running 4.4.2 but I had to upgrade because of a bug that was fixed in
4.4.3 (Apache crashed if you tried to fopen a URL!)

On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "LiquidEyes" <n... [at] liquideyes.net> wrote:
> > Actually, it is for the most part. No problems with cURL in 4.4.2 here.
> > Latest release was 4.4.6, of 01-03-2007. You're not going to tell me
> > that's to old are you?
>
> Yup I'm running 4.4.6.
>
> I was running 4.4.2 but I had to upgrade because of a bug that was fixed in
> 4.4.3 (Apache crashed if you tried to fopen a URL!)

although there is a bug report out for curl in 4.4.6 for fedora,
(probably not related) I still feel you are using the wrong version,
my gut feeling is that when you upgraded there were files that did not
upgrade. It is the commonest and most likely apart from not having the
required dependecies that the php site talks about. If you used the
installer over the top of the other php install I wouldnt trust the
new one.
Get a zip, move the old file, and copy the new ones in place, then
retry. SOrry to go down this route again, but have you absolutely
ruled this out by previous actions. (my last word on the subject!)