Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:42996 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71634 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2009 16:11:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Feb 2009 16:11:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=danielc@analysisandsolutions.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=danielc@analysisandsolutions.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain analysisandsolutions.com from 166.84.1.72 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: danielc@analysisandsolutions.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 166.84.1.72 mail1.panix.com Received: from [166.84.1.72] ([166.84.1.72:57516] helo=mail1.panix.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5C/8B-12172-6C8F2994 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:11:51 -0500 Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [166.84.1.3]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852B829441 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:11:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by panix3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 14662) id 5B36A8FDE0; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:11:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:11:47 -0500 To: PHP Internals List Message-ID: <20090211161147.GA13632@panix.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC for new INI's From: danielc@analysisandsolutions.com (Daniel Convissor) Hi Eric: On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:27:03PM -0500, Eric Stewart wrote: > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/newinis Thanks for the work. I noticed the actual directives in the files are the same. I guess you just focused on the Quick Reference section and getting the comments set up the way you want. Line 488 in prod and 483 in dev need to have the link commented out. error_reporting: should be E_ALL in production. Well written code should not be generating notices, so notices indicate a problem that needs fixing. output_buffering: I agree with having it off in dev, since it encourages cleaner programming practices. Relying on buffering can lead to getting bitten when deploying to a server that has it off. variables_order: They should be the same on dev and prod. request_order: Seems like it should be the same. track_errors: I like this on in all environments. Functions exist that you need to get detailed error information but don't provide a way to get at them in the code other than $php_errormsg. Your comment that it's helpful for debugging dev servers undersells the this feature. session.bug_compat_42 and session.bug_compat_warn: The grammar in your comments needs cleaning up. Hmm, perhaps all of the comments do :), I haven't looked. Anyway, the worst offense is the use of a double negative: "It's not recommended that you do not use this feature on production servers." Thanks, --Dan -- T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y data intensive web and database programming http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ 4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409