Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59817
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F876943.8030105@gmail.com>
References: <CAKOpQSwYe+tZ3JfLFWaOHCnBpUyy9yoA61=qLzbnnOKTL0mQdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXa554p45tbNFvtHQJiYTXaa0eD6r+qnExDVk+6e8PRvMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F876943.8030105@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:04:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSzAZauE9HYK3x-5UbxAstkdkc-HkfZRa+E+i=DNxQwkBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Muir <davidkmuir@gmail.com>
Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d460bebf67c204bd843542
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New .phpp File Type for Pure-Code PHP Scripts
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--0016e6d460bebf67c204bd843542
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, David Muir <davidkmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/04/12 09:38, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2012/4/13 Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>:
> >> Per recent discussions, I have drafted an RFC for this.  This proposal
> >> offers what I believe to be a more sane and realistic approach to
> >> addressing the question of incorporating a new breed of tag-less PHP
> >> scripts.
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpp
> > This may work for LFI issue for new codes.
> > Few questions.
> >
> > CLI may use .phpp as PHP script always. (i.e. execute w/o <?php or else)
> > It's like DOS, though.
> >
> > How do you enforce .phpp as script only for Web?
> > Is it a rule for configuration? or .phpp just never supposed to locate
> > under docroot?
> > It relates previous question. How about bootstrap script for frameworks?
> >
> >> A regular .php script cannot be included from a .phpp script. An
> E_WARNING will be thrown for include and an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR will be
> thrown for require; in both instances, the included file will be ignored.
> > Some people may try to make .phpp handled by web.
> > I cannot tell if this setting is going to be popular, but if it
> > does, isn't it the end of embedded PHP?
> > It might be good if PHP is more tolerant for this usage.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Yasuo Ohgaki
> > yohgaki@ohgaki.net
> >
>
> That's a huge WTF that a templating library can't be written as .phpp,
> because it then won't be able to load a template.
>

That's actually not true.  Please refer to the diagram embedded in the RFC.

Basically, you can load a template just fine-- you just can't do it
directly from a .phpp file, which you shouldn't be doing, anyway.  The
.phpp file is, at least for the most part, intended to be included from a
regular .php file, which also would include whatever you're using for your
templates.  In other words, they can interact just fine; you just can't put
the template upstream from a .phpp file in the include stack-- which,
again, you really shouldn't be doing, anyway, as it's just bad architecture.


>
> David
>

--0016e6d460bebf67c204bd843542--