Jani Taskinen wrote:
"evolution" doesn't cut it. It would have been simple enough to combine cli into the cgi binary and be done with it, and I suggested as much that it should be done a very long time ago. I don't recall any major reasons why it wasn't done, other than that cli has been experimental. "evolution" would have been to fix the executable we have had, rather than creating multiple executables that do essentialy the same thing, and this issue would have been avoided altogether.On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Shane Caraveo wrote:Simply because calling the command line interface should be easy - as easy as calling awk or perl or whatever. Every server api module like cgi must be installed, so the name does not matter there. But having long names for command line utils is a bad idea. marcusWell, fortunately I never have time for qa, handling bugs, etc. etc. so I wont have to deal with the backlash that this name change **WILL** cause. I feel sorry for those who have the time to deal with it, as that will be about all they will deal with, rather than handling more important bugs and issues. Basicly, the namechange goes against severalDon't worry, we'll make some quick-resolve for it too. We didn't get overwhelmed by that register_globals issue either. (like some people thought we would :)years of history in php, tons of documentation, general community knowledge, etc., and top it off with the fact that in reality, probably less than 1 percent of users use php as a command line language.
It's evolution. :) And we do hope that the amount of people using PHP on command line increases. Besides, having the "php-cgi" binary
makes it very clear what it is about. But naming the CLI binary "php-cli" definately does not.
I'm actually a bit uncertain why we actually have separate binaries.
(or I've forgot why they were separated..anyone?)
--Jani
Shane
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
