At 17:44 09.12.2002, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
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*
Thanks for the explanation....i totally agree here with the exception
being the name of the cli executable :-)
marcus
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
