Re: Newbie Question
| From: | Joshua Kehn | Date: | Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:25:08 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Question | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-310455@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Jan 2, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Adam Richardson wrote:
>
> I tend to disagree with Ashley on this topic. For many websites, I'll start
> out making all pages .php, even if they don't require PHP at the moment.
> That's for a couple reasons.
>
> 1) A few years back, there was certainly a significant performance advantage
> to keeping essentially static pages html. However, in my current
> benchmarking (using both siege and ab on my Ubuntu servers using apache with
> mod_php), if I use a cache such as APC and a well-configured apache server,
> PHP tends to perform just as well (or sometimes even better) than the html
> version.
>
> Rasmus has demonstrated similar performance results:
> http://talks.php.net/show/froscon08/24
>
> 2) I don't want to have to change urls site-wide and set up redirects from
> the old url whenever a page requires adding dynamic capabilities. By making
> all pages PHP right from the beginning, adding dynamic capabilities is a
> snap as I just add the functionality.
>
> Adam
I agree starting with all .php files is good practice for basic sites. I recommend for applications
and bigger then basic project using a decent framework or main routing file to handle routes for
you, instead of requiring you to manually adjust them if something changes.
Regards,
-Josh
____________________________________
Joshua Kehn | Josh.Kehn@gmail.com
http://joshuakehn.com