Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59830
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F877777.8050806@gmail.com>
References: <CAKOpQSwYe+tZ3JfLFWaOHCnBpUyy9yoA61=qLzbnnOKTL0mQdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXa554p45tbNFvtHQJiYTXaa0eD6r+qnExDVk+6e8PRvMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F876943.8030105@gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSzAZauE9HYK3x-5UbxAstkdkc-HkfZRa+E+i=DNxQwkBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F877777.8050806@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:03:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSyC6Zs=3-AQ8=L-aufTP03j0yhnRiu3n6pNP7YSpW_KLg@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=f46d0438934703267804bd850c7c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New .phpp File Type for Pure-Code PHP Scripts
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d0438934703267804bd850c7c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM, David Muir <davidkmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 13/04/12 10:04, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> How is this bad architecture? Every framework I've seen that has some kind
> of templating layer that handles the scope and inclusion of the template,
> and it happens further down the chain from the controlling code.
>
> Zend_View, Twig or Smarty would have to remain as .php and not .phpp,
> otherwise they wouldn't be able to render the templates.
>
> In the case of Zend Framwork, which I'm most familiar with, the
> application, front controller, dispatcher, and action controllers, and some
> services would have to remain as .php so that templates could be executed.
>
> Oh, and the autoloader can't be .phpp either. But then if it's .php, then
> the autoloader can't be called from .phpp files to include .php files.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>

It's been awhile since I've used Smarty, but unless my memory is failing
me, I'm pretty sure it's not restricted to being several points removed
upstream as you described.  I'm not familiar with Zend_View or Twig so I
can't comment on those.

Thing is, there's no reason why you can't hook any framework into this.
Worst-case scenario, if the library you're hooking into has a rigid
structure, just write a simple controller class layer to operate on top of
it, then use that same controller class to interface with the .phpp stack.
Problem solved.  It's really not as complicated or confusing as you're
making it out to be.

--Kris

--f46d0438934703267804bd850c7c--