Re: FPM RFC

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 22:58 23/03/2010, Antony Dovgal wrote: > > > On 03/23/2010 11:54 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > At 22:44 23/03/2010, Jérôme Loyet wrote: > > >>In fact with INI syntax, there is a serious missing cause there is no > > >>include system shiped with. And with FPM as there is potentialy many > > >>"vhosts", it's necessary to have an include system to feet all > > >>system > > >>administrator needs. > > > > > > We were talking about the syntax, not actually using php.ini or > > > PHP's INI subsystem. You can use the ini parser to implement > > > includes without a problem. > > > > The point is the XML syntax is already there and it's working fine, > > thank you. No need to implement something on top of something that > > wasn't supposed to be used this way. > > You can't end discussions like that. The XML syntax may be there, but > the FPM extension isn't a part of PHP, and I think what you're hearing > is that in order to make it a part of PHP, it needs to conform to the > way we do things in PHP - which does not involve XML configuration > files. I don't see how this actually matters. None of the other SAPIs are configured with a php.ini syntax. That includes IIS, Apache, Lighttpd and others. This is more of a webserver thing than a "PHP thing" so I don't see how it is relevant to require php.ini syntax if this XML configure file works just fine already. I mean, it'd be *nice* to have a non-XML syntax, but for me this is definitely not a requirement for FPM to be added to trunk. If you (or somebody else) wants a php.ini syntax for it, a patch can be written. It's Open Source after all. with kind regards, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug