Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:47512 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 39589 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2010 20:55:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Mar 2010 20:55:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain daylessday.org designates 89.208.40.236 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tony@daylessday.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 89.208.40.236 mail.daylessday.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [89.208.40.236] ([89.208.40.236:45843] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 31/1D-03444-6DA29AB4 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:55:51 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (ppp83-237-247-166.pppoe.mtu-net.ru [83.237.247.166]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79206BFA085 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:55:47 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <4BA92AD2.8010709@daylessday.org> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:55:46 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 SUSE/3.0.1-1.2 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <4BA8EF6F.8010503@daylessday.org> <4BA8F72E.5090701@sci.fi> <4BA8F985.1090109@daylessday.org> <4BA919D2.3060605@daylessday.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100323222839.12d7b088@zend.com> In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100323222839.12d7b088@zend.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] FPM RFC From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 03/23/2010 11:31 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > It's not clear at all. In fact I think it was very clear that using > php.ini syntax (together with sections if necessary) is very much an > option, and I think mostly everyone here leaned towards it. Just take a look at it: http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3_FPM/sapi/fpm/php-fpm.conf.in?revision=292487&view=markup How do you propose to describe the same set of options using php.ini syntax? Yes, simple things like "value=Yes/No" or "value=DIR" fit just fine into php.ini. But how would decribe a set of pools each with its own set of options? (taking into account that some of these options may override global options) Last time I heard it was proposed to use copy/paste to add 'global' options to each pool =) > By using syntax we're using everywhere else for configuration, > instead of introducing a brand new one. This is not a php.ini, this is a different config file for a different service. You don't expect Apache to switch to php.ini syntax just because it's nice and familiar, do you? > .ini is also easier than XML for mere mortals. Now I was never an XML fan myself, but I think THIS particular XML config file is even easier to read and understand than php.ini. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal --- http://pinba.org - realtime statistics for PHP