hi Derick,

Please discuss that on the internals mailing (new thread).

We agreed to introduce this syntax to trunk while evaluating FPM
altogether. It then makes sense to discuss this evaluation on the list
instead of arguing about a commit.

Thanks,

Cheers,

2010/4/23 Derick Rethans <der...@php.net>:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Jérôme Loyet wrote:
>
>> Le 23 avril 2010 11:31, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> a écrit :
>> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Jérôme Loyet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Log:
>> >> switch the configuration syntax from xml to ini
>> >> It's been describe in the RFC: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/fpm/ini_syntax
>>
>> > I feel extremely unhappy about this patch. From what I've seen there
>> > is only a very small group of people that want to switch from the
>> > XML format to the INI format. Another group, was opposed to this
>> > move. I for one, find this new INI stuff extremely complicated and
>> > annoying.
>>
>> Please compare http://www.fatbsd.com/fpm/php-fpm.conf.ini and
>> http://www.fatbsd.com/fpm/php-fpm.conf.xml
>> Those 2 files have exactly the same values.
>>
>> r...@raptor> wc php-fpm.conf.*
>>       33      28     683 php-fpm.conf.ini
>>       48      77    1554 php-fpm.conf.xml
>>
>> Number of lines: 32% less lines in INI than XML
>> Number of words: 64% less words in INI than XML
>> Numbers of bytes: 57% less bytes in INI than XML
>>
>> Do you really think XML is easier to read/right than INI ?
>
> Conciseness has never been a synonym for readability.
>
> The structured approach of the XML makes it much easier to see exactly
> which value belongs to which section.
>
>> > Instead of a nice ordered XML file we now have a mess of INI files
>> > that makes me think of Windows 3.11.
>>
>> So in your mind you want the php.ini to be changed to xml (php.xml) ?
>
> No, they are two different things. php.ini doesn't need sections, or
> nested structures whereas the FPM configuration benefits from it
> so that you can see immediately to which part a specific configuration
> setting belongs.
>
> There are two totally different uses of configuration files here, so
> there is no reason to jump through hoops to make them look a little bit
> the same and introducing lots of complexity at the same time. It's even
> more ridiculous because the original XML configuration format was
> working just fine.
>
> regards,
> Derick
>
> --
> http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
> Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
> twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
>
> --
> PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>



-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

--
PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to