Re: Script ID?

On 21 May 2011 17:34, Stuart Dallas <stuart@3ft9.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 21 May 2011 17:18, Stuart Dallas <stuart@3ft9.com> wrote: >> >> *snip* >> >> >> Again, this depends upon what your url scheme looks like - and without >> >> knowing that, there's simple no clue as to whether or not this is a >> >> good solution to the problem (though it might be a good solution to A >> >> problem). >> > >> > Again, I disagree. If you have an example of a URL structure where this >> > would not work I'd love to hear it. >> > -Stuart >> >> Having to replace several times just in order to figure out the path >> to your script is pointless if you know the name of the script (which >> you always do - it's __FILE__ ) and you're using a one-to-one >> request-to-script scheme. Then just grab the part of the url up to and >> including your scriptname. > > Well, it would be basename(__FILE__), but that's beside the point. In this > particular case, where the PHP filename is the last part of the URL, that > will indeed work. However, as you have pointed out several times that's not > always the case and I tend to write generic, defensive code rather than make > assumptions. Not a bad habit. I would personally go with "let's either find out or make a decision" instead of wasting time on coding for situations that will crop up. >> >> Note I used the word good - doing several str_replace() and other >> calls is not what I consider a good solution if there's something >> simpler available with as good a result. > > Obviously that's your choice to make, but these days I very rarely work on > projects where there is a one-to-one mapping, and even if I did I would not > rely on that always being the case. I've worked on a number of projects > where the URL structure has been massively changed (a couple from one-to-one > to controller-based) where it would have taking an excessive amount of time > to undo that assumption. > Using rawurlencode on $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'] is flexible, largely > future-proof and takes no more effort than the manipulation you are doing on > __FILE__ to get the same result. Given the choice I'll always go for 10% > extra work now to save 90% extra work later, even if it's only potential > work later. I can generally agree with that, depending on project though. Regards Peter -- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk LinkedIn: plind BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51 Twitter: kafe15 </hype>