On Jan 2, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Adam Richardson wrote:
> I tend to disagree with Ashley on this topic. For many websites, I'll start
> out making all pages .php, even if they don't require PHP at the moment.
> That's for a couple reasons.
> 1) A few years back, there was certainly a significant performance advantage
> to keeping essentially static pages html. However, in my current
> benchmarking (using both siege and ab on my Ubuntu servers using apache with
> mod_php), if I use a cache such as APC and a well-configured apache server,
> PHP tends to perform just as well (or sometimes even better) than the html
> Rasmus has demonstrated similar performance results:
> 2) I don't want to have to change urls site-wide and set up redirects from
> the old url whenever a page requires adding dynamic capabilities. By making
> all pages PHP right from the beginning, adding dynamic capabilities is a
> snap as I just add the functionality.
I agree starting with all .php files is good practice for basic sites. I
recommend for applications and bigger then basic project using a decent
framework or main routing file to handle routes for you, instead of requiring
you to manually adjust them if something changes.
Joshua Kehn | josh.k...@gmail.com
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php