Re: Newbie Q: Any difference what the .ext is on include() files???
| From: | @ Edwin | Date: | Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:36:48 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Q: Any difference what the .ext is on include() files??? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-118194@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello,
On Monday, September 30, 2002 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP] Newbie Q: Any difference what the .ext is on include()
files???
[ Rene Brehmer ] wrote:
> I appreciate your advice, but it would not really apply to my structure
> ... because of the amount of files I use, I've got seperate include
> folders for each section ... otherwise I'd get all weird in the head
> trying to remember which files go where.
Of course, it's a good idea (and a good practice) to separate folders
for each section of your site ("/images/", "/blahblah/", etc.). But,
putting
all include files in *one* folder (like "/inc/" or "/includes/" as
suggested).
Why, do you have thousands of files?
> Basically it's the site in my sig that I'm converting to PHP, with a few
> minor changes, made (easily) possible by the PHP. My first concern is to
> make the site without a frameset, and without requiring any scripting
> clientside. Once launched, I'll be looking into improving the site as much
> as possible...taking as much advantage of PHP as possible ... but again, I
> don't know the full extent of my options until I've gotten my webhotel...
>
> How'd anyone be able to pull out my PHP source anyway?
You mean the "includes"? There are many ways if you don't follow the
conventions (or suggestions) already given.
> Since it's an http server, it'll only respond to http requests, and since
> php is processed upon request,
Why, did you name all your files with a .php extension? Or, are you sure
that all your *.ext are being processed as php files?
> the enitre source will be altered to just
> html ... don't get that ... atleast the way I do it, the path to the
included files
> is hidden, 'cause it's all variable controlled ... it just plugs together
the
> variable with some path parts, directly in the include(...).
?
> So for anyone to pull the includes, they'll need to know the exact path to
> them, in order to retrieve them, right?
Right. Perhaps.
But you only need time to find out... unless you name your folders
(or included files) something like:
/thisIsMyVeryhardT0GuessFolderHehehe/
thisIsMyVeryhardT0GuessFolderHehehe.withVeryHardt0GuessExt
maybe it takes more time ;)
- E