Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59834
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSzghw15p10-6TyNr1bHqagM-iFSovHOHeRH-xpYgaSLNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKOpQSwYe+tZ3JfLFWaOHCnBpUyy9yoA61=qLzbnnOKTL0mQdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXaaSs_Y1cZPWezinZSeqXEeAB3Qq-VMzMkHHHJXu_DOqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOpQSzghw15p10-6TyNr1bHqagM-iFSovHOHeRH-xpYgaSLNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:22:07 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXZrFqg99BoCYJd478FntuzZmiuUFGNS6hE53t4hMQ25Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New .phpp File Type for Pure-Code PHP Scripts
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

Hi,

2012/4/13 Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If we aren't going to consider saving current code risk, then
>> we could use both new include and file name convention.
>>
>> Introduce application/x-httpd-php-script, then we could
>>
>> AddHandler php5-script .php
>> AddType text/html .php
>> AddType application/x-httpd-php-source .phps
>> AddType application/x-httpd-php-script =A0 .ph // .phpp .phpc .phpscript
>> whatever extension here
>
>
> Yeah that's more or less what I had in mind, actually.=A0 There'd be work
> involved, no question, but there's no reason why it shouldn't be doable.
>
>>
>>
>> We may need ENV vars for other SAPIs.
>
>
> I'm only familiar with installing PHP on Apache and IIS, so I honestly ha=
ve
> no idea how it would work with other webservers.=A0 I'd wager that it's
> possible enough, but as for the "how," I'll have to defer to those who ha=
ve
> experience working with said webserver(s).
>
>>
>>
>> script/script_once for PHP only script includes.
>
>
> Would the new "script" keyword behave like include or require?=A0 I'm ver=
y
> wary of the idea of having a special include to treat .php files the same=
 as
> .phpp files, simply because it would seem to add a lot of complexity and
> potential for confusion, but I won't necessarily rule it out altogether,
> either.=A0 Right now I'm just working on reassuring those who are afraid =
this
> will cause every single framework on the internet to spontaneously combus=
t
> lol.

Will it?

As I wrote in other thread, it convenient for backward
compatibility.

function script($file) { return include($file); }
function script_once($file) { return include_once($file); }

It's for new PHP. Why not new keyword.

It's true that people are used file extension convention.
application/x-httpd-php-script and script/script_once for script
only PHP may confuse people. I think it is acceptable, but others
may not.

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net