Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46370
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.219 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=SYKAFdY0YiXBg6DTukAHToDRMp3aLQ0qQiTwDH0yfFsw/Q4fbKxZ13B02wuZo/zBwn
         IzeSPsNtkhDNdTCwzoGos4Y9EfFiFk1n8DRcRLM0/1c+qs3HeJYoiOEWPPkVk2vp0LjJ
         RTqBvN8tMfdJWJKv67L/DBfaELi6Pg21BUUko=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
In-Reply-To: <3bea96c40912090944r23831b52pc57dae2b7905c15@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:49:50 +0300
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>,
 Antony Dovgal <tony@daylessday.org>,
 php-dev <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E452F939-DF65-4E8F-B378-50152013B70B@gmail.com>
References: <3bea96c40912090655i263115bbid923deb2bdf296a6@mail.gmail.com> <4B1FBAF0.7020506@daylessday.org> <3bea96c40912090711o3927e257gab87783a6763f172@mail.gmail.com> <fe05d1540912090816v77aadff6k1be1dea5af25942c@mail.gmail.com> <3bea96c40912090944r23831b52pc57dae2b7905c15@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Loyet?= <jerome@loyet.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-FPM] syntax of configuration file
From: indeyets@gmail.com (Alexey Zakhlestin)


On 09.12.2009, at 20:44, J=E9r=F4me Loyet wrote:

> Le 9 d=E9cembre 2009 17:16, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> a =E9crit=
 :
>> hi,
>>=20
>> 2009/12/9 J=E9r=F4me Loyet <jerome@loyet.net>:
>>=20
>>>>> We already discussed pros/cons of the two solutions. But why don't =
we
>>>>> allow several syntaxes ? And let the end user to choose the better =
one
>>>>> for its need ?
>>>>=20
>>>> No. Thank you.
>>>> EOD
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> and why of that ? Why is it already EOD wihtout arguing ? php-fpm =
just
>>> started in PHP core and there is willing from people to help and =
make
>>> php-fpm better, which I tought was the final goal.
>>=20
>> It is, however I have to agree with Tony here, adding a fpm specific
>> syntax makes little sense. Or do you have any killing arguments for
>> this new syntax (like not possible to do it otherwise, stoping point
>> etc.)?
>>=20
>=20
> I don't have killing arguments I just came with a discussion which
> seems fair here. Now it's xml and before it's been integrated there
> were discutions about changing it to nginx. So I bring back the
> discution here.
>=20
> about multiple syntax it was a proposal which was about to make all
> users happy but the complexity and the confusion is a good argument, I
> heard it.
>=20
> So let have the question another way:
> Do we keep XML or do we switch to something else ? If so, which format =
?
>=20
> I and some others think xml is not appropriate here because of the
> complexity. So I do think there is a need to change.
>=20
> INI or other ?
> INI is used widely in PHP and users know it. But it's not well adapted
> for the actual php-fpm configuration organisation. (properties in
> sections or subsections). If choosed how will it be organized ?
>=20
> If we want something else than XML and INI, we can use ngxin like or
> yaml configuration file, or other ...

as much as I like yaml, it's not a good choice here (because it would =
add extra dependency)

what about json?
php has nice json encoder and decoder

still, if ini can be adapted without much struggle we should use it.