On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 19:27 26/09/2002, David Viner wrote: > >If the term "include" is not a good keyword, I'm also happy to rework the > >patch to use any keyword the group prefers. "additional_ini" sounds good to > >me, and probably doesn't carry the other control-structure baggage. > > I don't think that additional_ini carries any less control-structure > baggage; If you can include various ini files using various statements in > php.ini, it begs for adding control structures to perform this task > selectively. I'm very much against it. It also doesn't make modular > deployment that much easier - if you still have to add statements to the > php.ini file in order to get it going. > > I think that a dynamic deployment directory makes good sense, I don't think > it has a high wtf factor, and it doesn't push us anywhere towards needing > control structures. It becomes a feature of PHP, instead of a feature of > the php.ini syntax. It's something we can even set up during 'make > install' with a default being /usr/local/etc/additional_php_inis or > something like that.
I agree with this. Derick -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ JDI Media Solutions --------------[ if you hold a unix shell to your ear, do you hear the c? ]- -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
