Kris, > As discussed on other threads, PHPP files that are called directly from the > webserver are handled by the SAPI handler and thus don't need any special > identification.
Except that they do. Right now, SAPI handlers just invoke PHP. So there would need to be some way of communicating the difference over the SAPI. And in most of the SAPIs, that's not really practical. So for most SAPIs, it would require running two instances for each site, one for "regular" php, and one for the new phpp. Given the problems that this can ensue, I think that there's an issue with that concept. So again, we're back to configuration... > If they are called as includes, this would be handled > either through a new keyword or a <?phpp tag at the top of the .phpp file. > The latter approach is my preferred choice but I'm keeping an open mind on > this question since there have been some differing opinions on that. Now I'm even more confused. So instead of making a <?php less file entirely (just source), you're just making a new syntax which disallows ?>??? > I didn't mention this in the RFC because I wanted to see if we could reach > some sort of consensus on that point here first, but instead the > conversation has drifted onto wild tangents. These other threads were > discussed literally just hours before this one so I just naturally assumed > that people who commented on this had followed them as well and knew this. > But in hindsight I can see how somebody seeing the RFC without having > kept-up on recent Internals discussions could be confused by that, so I'll > go ahead and amend the RFC to clarify this point. But no, the file > extension itself is not what determines how it's parsed. ;) Ok, let me ask for something then. Please demote this RFC to draft status. Under discussion indicates (to me at least) that we're discussing a particular technical solution prior to a vote. But if there's no technical solution, and it's still changing (or supposed to change), it should be in draft. Otherwise you're communicating that it's ready to be considered when it's really not... > Did you just read the first sentence of that paragraph then ignore the > rest?! Because everything after "per se" answers your question already. Actually, it doesn't. The "problem" you identified isn't solvable by this method. We already proved that. So my original question stands. What is the problem that you're trying to solve. The rest of that paragraph tried to defend the usefulness of the addition. That's not a problem to solve. By clarifying this into a clear and concise problem statement, you may be better results with the RFC... > I think you misinterpreted the "problem." The problem isn't output being > sent to the browser via PHP commands/functions. The problem is raw HTML > code being sent to the browser directly via ?>. In other words, templating > output as opposed to just all output. Obviously, preventing ALL direct > output would be virtually impossible anyway and really wouldn't much any > sense. The RFC also explains this. > > We're just talking about ?> here, not echo/print. Except that it's not sent to the browser via ?>... It's outputted just like an echo would be. See: http://codepad.viper-7.com/9XbsOI >> I think that's a bit of a stretch. Include vs Require are very >> different statements. They fail, not because something violated a >> convention you want enforced, but because the application considers it >> unsafe to continue without that file. So if you're expecting a class >> to be there, and it's not, it would be literally unsafe to continue. >> Hence the fatal error. > > > Actually, they're really not. They both behave identically except for the > error_level thrown, unless I'm mistaken. I was saying Include vs Require is very different from php vs phpp... Sorry, should have worded that better. > And again, which one to use comes down to developer preference, philosophy, > etc. Personally, I won't include a class or other script unless I know it's > there and I need it. Therefore, if it's not there, I want everything to > blow-up. That's my philosophy, but to each his/her own. The point is, I'm > glad that require is there so that developers with this way of thinking can > construct their code accordingly. Except that if a file is not there, it's easy to assume that the application will be in an inconsistent state. I can't really make that same leap for ?> output... Not even close... > No, it's in the Internals thread. It's just that nobody seems to have > actually read it. If it's important, make sure it's highlighted in the RFC. Otherwise, don't complain if someone missed that email... > That's probably where your misunderstanding of it was borne then. The RFC > is just an initial draft and it's based on several days' worth of prior > discussions on various threads, including 2 other RFCs written by other > people attempting to accomplish the same thing but in different ways. I > just assumed that the same people who were discussing it on those threads > would come here and help me brainstorm through some of the details, but it > looks like they weren't given a chance before the reactionary onslaught > came. Again, then pull it out of discussion and into draft. In the discussion phase, the RFC should be the canonical reference point around the topic. And in this case it's not, so it's not really ready for discussion phase. Thanks, Anthony > I do plan on updating the RFC with more details as we figure them out, but > in the meantime I would suggest you catch-up on what's been said so far on > Internals and the RFCs before commenting further. I would have suggested > that in my previous email but I didn't realize that was the source of your > dissonance. If we can tone down the manufactured outrage and doomsday > predictions for a bit, we can get back to hammering out these specifics so I > can complete the RFC and be confident that the best methods have been > included with care and deliberation. > >> >> >> If you want to prevent going back and forth, update the RFC when >> something is solved (or not). That way, there's a canonical place to >> reference. Reading through tons of emails (especially when most of >> the have an aggressive or rant tone to them) is not constructive... > > > That's been the plan all along. Unfortunately, nothing has been solved > because the thread was rather quickly hijacked by hyperbolic drama from > people who hadn't even been following this discussion. > >> >> > So please, PLEASE, check to make sure something hasn't already been said >> > before posting it! And if you're concerned about something, please, >> > PLEASE, >> > make sure that you're not getting this RFC confused with someone else's! >> > I >> > promise you, my mood will improve dramatically if people would just >> > start >> > doing that. =) >> >> I re-read the RFC again before this email, and from what I can see, >> all my original points are still outstanding... > > > See above. =) > > --Kris > >> >> >> Anthony >> >> > --Kris >> > >> >> >> >> Anthony >> >> >> >> >> >> > Regarding the specific comment, it was in response to a far-overused >> >> > cliche >> >> > on this list whenever new ideas are posted; "That's not important, we >> >> > should be working on other things." It always annoys me when people >> >> > post >> >> > that, because it doesn't amount to any specific criticism and it >> >> > assumes >> >> > that talking about one thing prevents us from working on another. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Please refer to my previous posts on the matter. For me at least, >> >> >> > this >> >> >> > isn't about saving a 5-byte tag. It's about making it easier to >> >> >> structure >> >> >> > your code with a stronger separation between design and backend >> >> >> > function. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> As to this point it doesn't fall in line with what PHP is. PHP is >> >> >> meant >> >> >> to >> >> >> be >> >> >> embed-able. It's meant to be easy. It's meant to make the >> >> >> development >> >> >> process fast and simple. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > This RFC doesn't change any of that. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> It isn't meant to be difficult or painful. It isn't meant to create >> >> >> impenetrable >> >> >> separation between code and design. That won't make anything easier >> >> >> on >> >> >> the user. If anything you've just created a border they now have to >> >> >> figure >> >> >> out >> >> >> how to cross over. Why are you insisting that this separation isn't >> >> >> already >> >> >> easy enough to achieve with PHP? Because to me it always has been >> >> >> easy. >> >> >> I've been doing it for 6 years. I haven't found anyone that thinks >> >> >> the >> >> >> process >> >> >> is incredibly difficult or hasn't been able to achieve it in >> >> >> reasonable >> >> >> time. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > PHP has evolved over the years and its usage has evolved. I would >> >> > encourage you to read the background section of the RFC, as I've >> >> > already >> >> > addressed this. >> >> > >> >> > The reason why I'm not responding to certain points is because I've >> >> > already >> >> > addressed them in the RFC and, as a general rule, I try not to be >> >> > dragged >> >> > in to arguments where I'm essentially just repeating myself over and >> >> > over >> >> > again. If somebody can't be troubled to read the RFC and my posts >> >> > before >> >> > responding to them, then why should I assume they'll read it if I >> >> > repeat >> >> > it >> >> > x number of times? To me, THAT is what would actually constitute a >> >> > waste >> >> > of time. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I think you guys are stressing-out about the file extension idea a >> >> >> > little >> >> >> > too much, and here's why: What I'm proposing with regard to the >> >> >> > .phpp >> >> >> > extension is a convention, nothing more. The actual >> >> >> > differentiation >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > be in the form of a separate handler that's essentially identical >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > current one except for the few minor changes outlined in the RFC. >> >> >> > In >> >> >> other >> >> >> > words, the .phpp extension is NOT mandatory. Just as .php is a >> >> >> convention, >> >> >> > so is this. If you want to give it an entirely differnet >> >> >> > extension >> >> >> > in >> >> >> the >> >> >> > webserver configuration, you can do so. The .phpp is just what >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > convention calls for, but in actuality what matters is that it's >> >> >> > just >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > different extension than what you're using for regular PHP >> >> >> > scripts. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > So I would urge everyone to calm down on this point, because I'm >> >> >> > not >> >> >> > proposing anything new in terms of how file extensions are used. >> >> >> > I >> >> >> > would >> >> >> > liken it to the difference between .php and .phps. You can give >> >> >> > them >> >> >> > whatever extension you want, so long as they're different. Make >> >> >> > sense? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I would urge that if you're going to make a suggestion you address >> >> >> in >> >> >> an objective >> >> >> manner what the pros and cons of said suggestion are and not take a >> >> >> biased >> >> >> view >> >> >> by weighing both sides of the facts evenly. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > You clearly have your own biased view on this issue, so I'm not sure >> >> > why >> >> > you feel it appropriate to lecture others on having their own biases. >> >> > >> >> > I'm the one who proposed this and I'm the one who's advocating it. >> >> > Of >> >> > course I'm going to be biased in favor of it. I feel I did a good >> >> > job >> >> > of >> >> > addressing these pros and cons in the RFC itself, which is where they >> >> > should be. The discussion is where I actually explain why I believe >> >> > the >> >> > pros outweigh the cons, not simply restate the two. Again, I don't >> >> > like >> >> > repeating myself (and yes, I realize the irony of that statement >> >> > given >> >> > how >> >> > many times I've said it lol). >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> I believe for the most part a lot of voices have weighed in on the >> >> >> cons of this idea >> >> >> as well as the pros and the cons seem to be clearly outweigh any of >> >> >> the >> >> >> pros. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > As I said, most of the criticisms have come from a very small number >> >> > of >> >> > vocal people. Their opinions are valid, but it would be inaccurate >> >> > to >> >> > assume they're the majority. The voting process will ultimately >> >> > determine >> >> > that. Some people, like myself, believe that the pros outweigh the >> >> > cons. >> >> > You obviously disagree. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> The supporting argument for that fact being that I'm seeing this RFC >> >> >> being rewritten >> >> >> as regularly as I take my morning coffee. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Huh?! Look at the changelog on the RFC. The only change I've made >> >> > so >> >> > far >> >> > since the initial draft was changing the status from draft to >> >> > discussion. >> >> > I haven't "rewritten" it even once, so I'm not sure where that >> >> > comment >> >> > came from. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> I respect everyone's right to their opinion and I'm willing to hear >> >> >> anyone out that is >> >> >> willing to consider both sides of the situation objectively and >> >> >> without >> >> >> biased. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I'm glad you respect everyone's right to their opinion. As do I. >> >> > But I >> >> > would ask you to reconsider your claim of being "unbiased," because >> >> > you've >> >> > clearly demonstrated a solid bias against this even on a core >> >> > conceptual >> >> > level. It might be more accurate to say that you're, "open-minded" >> >> > about >> >> > it, but "unbiased" would be at best misleading. I'm certainly not >> >> > unbiased >> >> > on this, and with all due respect, neither are you. So let's not >> >> > pretend >> >> > that we are. >> >> > >> >> > Also, I am increasingly frustrated over the fact that much of what >> >> > I've >> >> > put >> >> > forth appears to be repeatedly ignored by people commenting on this; >> >> > i.e. >> >> > raising issues that have already been addressed, etc. Most >> >> > importantly, >> >> > I've offered a third solution that would allow for per-file sanity >> >> > checking >> >> > instead of per-stack, which is exactly what the most vocal critics >> >> > have >> >> > been demanding, and yet so far not one person has so much as >> >> > acknowledged >> >> > this, let alone offered any sort of response (for or against), >> >> > despite >> >> > the >> >> > fact that this has to be at least the 4th time I've repeated it here. >> >> > Again, I don't like repeating myself, so please read what's already >> >> > been >> >> > said here and on the RFC before posting. And tell me what you think >> >> > about >> >> > the compromise I suggested. The only thing more frustrating than >> >> > having >> >> > to >> >> > repeat oneself is putting out an olive branch in hopes of finding >> >> > common >> >> > ground, only to be ignored and subsequently accused of not trying to >> >> > find >> >> > common ground. *grumble* >> >> > >> >> > Please review these things, *then *post a response. Thank you. >> >> > >> >> > --Kris >> > >> > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
