** Reply to note from Jon Parise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:39:20 -0500 > > I agree that it's sometimes necessary to have different configuration > files, but I don't consider it a necessity.
I do. > It should still be possible to build a separate CGI executable with a > different php.ini path for those sites that require it. > Don't get too stuck on the idea that PHP at the command line is only for CGI. In fact I don't do CGI any more. I am phasing out ALL perl CGI scripts because after seeing PHP as a module I can't stand the extra time it takes to execute the external program. PHP CGI has the same problem. I just say NO to all CGI. I've also quit using PERL for system programming, and moved most of the existing perl scripts I have written over to PHP. I haven't written a new PERL script since php 4 came out, and may never do it again. There isn't much I've done in PERL that I can't do in PHP, and it is quite annoying to try to remember all the syntax differences. There is substantial truth to the statement that PERL is a "write only" language. I can still understand my PHP code six months later, unlike a lot of PERL code. > Your suggestion of a separate php-cli.ini has merit, but who will the > php binary know when it's being used for CLI purposes and not as a > CGI? None of the apache related environment variables will be set? You could pick one and switch based on its existance. I still think that there are three distinct ways to use PHP: Apache Module CGI executable Command line and the differences justify separate ./configure options. Maybe Module and CGI are close enough to share a configuration, I don't do CGI so I can't say. Certainly there are drastic differences between module and command line. Rick Widmer Internet Marketing Specialists http://www.developersdesk.com -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
