On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 21:46 13/04/2010, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > Jérôme Loyet wrote: > > > Le 13 avril 2010 20:17, Christopher Jones > > > <christopher.jo...@oracle.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Jérôme Loyet wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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.
Uh, so what you're saying is that you want to use INI syntax for FPM so that it is inline with php's INI sytanx, but then modify it with extra statements so that it isn't the same anymore—not only with include, but section headers are totally ignored in php.ini as well. This whole new INI thing is making less and less sense. The XML format like we have now is much easier, self documented, doesn't create two different ini formats and generally just works well. I'd be a big -1 on this special FPM-specific INI syntax. Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
