Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59746
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAORXhGJ5GULr3J+XxUthBr0pF93=uFQSKw-ftKSs=cY77ZYi8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAORXhGK47pRN8uUTENqSbddQoCP8VopomPhJW7N2pN6ZU8vNPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALKFbxvfNPdibvPJvWWLo+T8K9F0SLS64GNfvwHLN4TNQjh4PA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGJ5GULr3J+XxUthBr0pF93=uFQSKw-ftKSs=cY77ZYi8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:27:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CALKFbxsNpfjHThLnf7JsDr=h1AJEA6DYPggWZ9hvA5j6QepMAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] UPDATED RFC version 1.1: source files without opening
 <?php tag
From: chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com (Chris Stockton)

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Chris Stockton
> <chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have read the RFC and I although from what I gather it seems that
>> .phpp is a recommendation and not a requirement, but I want to make
>> absolutely sure.
>
>
> That is correct, it is not a requirement. However if you know of any
> reason why .phpp would be a bad choice of file extension for PHP
> source files without <?php and ?> in them, now would be a good time to
> share that input.
>

Something about PHP advocating it makes me feel a little uneasy, I
guess it can at least help frameworks have a unified standard for
their auto loaders etc. My main concern is people expecting .phpp will
"just work" when including via apache on shared hosting servers etc.
End up with a file full of code, passwords, who knows what downloaded
or displayed in a browser. The burden of responsibility here is not
entirely clear for me, but I am just not sure I like proposing a
separate PHP extension, just seems a little wrong. However from what I
see no one else has said anything so perhaps I am wrong. I will say if
I was developing a framework I might try to think of other
alternatives for my auto loading / detecting of pure php files. I.E.a
specific folder like "purephplib" a specific portion of the file name
or something like "Class_Name_Pure" (like this much less then folders,
but I think more then a file extension. Just my two cents.

>> My only other issue is that we are not really following the guidelines
>> for reserved constants, since "include" is not part of a "include"
>> extension and a actual language construct it feels like it should live
>> inside the reserved PHP_* constants. There may be projects that make
>> use of "INCLUDE_ONCE" as a constant or maybe not, regardless I think
>> it should follow the documented naming guidelines to be safe.
>
> I wasn't aware of those guidelines. This makes sense to me.
> PHP_INCLUDE_ONCE, then?
>

I will let others comment here, was just my initial thoughts.

-Chris