Shane Caraveo wrote:
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.
Way back CGI and CLI *did* share one binary (the CGI binary) and the code was cluttered with code behaviour depending on the environment the binary was called in. The code with all these situation-dependant if() blocks was a true mess getting even worse with every new CGI- or CLI-only feature added. Even worse: some features and extensions don't make sense in a CGI (ncurses, gtk, pcntl, argc/argv parsing) while other features belong into a CGI binary only. The introduction of the seperate CLI binary or SAPI happened for two reasons: - removal of situation-dependant code in the CGI thus cleaning up the code base(as stated above) - the ability to build the CLI alongside with *every* SAPI So we can argue about binary naming, but definetly *not* about about the CGI/CLI split. No matter how similar the two binaries might look, they *aren't* -- Six Offene Systeme GmbH http://www.six.de/ i.A. Hartmut Holzgraefe Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel.: +49-711-99091-77 -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
