Re: [RFC] FPM INI syntax
| From: | Jérôme Loyet | Date: | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:28:10 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] FPM INI syntax | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-47988@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
2010/4/15 Christopher Jones <christopher.jones@oracle.com>:
>
>
> On 04/13/2010 12:01 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> At 21:46 13/04/2010, Christopher Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jérôme Loyet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 13 avril 2010 20:17, Christopher Jones
>>>> <christopher.jones@oracle.com> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Jérôme Loyet wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As dreamcast4 advises me in the previous FPM conversation, I just
>>>>>> wrote the RFC for the FPM INI syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can be read here:
>>>>>> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/fpm/ini_syntax
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me what you think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ++ Jerome
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the RFC should clearly state what is new generic php.ini
>>>>> functionality (e.g. include) and what is specific for FPM.
>>>>
>>>> for me everything is specific to FPM
>>>
>>> How is "include" specific to FPM?
>>
>> What he means is that it'll be implemented in the custom code
>> responsible for parsing fpm.ini, and not in the ZE .ini parser which
>> would be the layer below it. Implementing include() can be done at
>> either layer. If it's implemented at the bottom layer (ZE) then it'll
>> transparently effect any and all .ini's - not sure we want that (maybe).
>> If we implement it at the top layer - the custom code that's responsible
>> for fpm.ini, then it will be entirely specific to it and won't effect
>> php.ini behavior in any way (exactly like the support for the
>> 'extension' keyword is implemented for php.ini, but not for any other
>> .ini's - because it's at the top custom-code layer).
>>
>> Zeev
>>
>
> Thanks Zeev. Jérôme should add this clarification to the RFC.
>
already done.
++ jerome