At 22:55 23/03/2010, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 03/23/2010 11:31 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> It's not clear at all. In fact I think it was very clear that using
> php.ini syntax (together with sections if necessary) is very much an
> option, and I think mostly everyone here leaned towards it.
Just take a look at it:
<http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3_FPM/sapi/fpm/php-fpm.conf.in?revision=292487&view=markup>http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3_FPM/sapi/fpm/php-fpm.conf.in?revision=292487&view=markup
How do you propose to describe the same set of options using php.ini syntax?
Yes, simple things like "value=Yes/No" or "value=DIR" fit just fine
into php.ini.
But how would decribe a set of pools each with its own set of options?
(taking into account that some of these options may override global options)
option...
anotheroption...
[pool1]
option...
anotheroption...
[pool2]
option...
anotheroption...
> By using syntax we're using everywhere else for configuration,
> instead of introducing a brand new one.
This is not a php.ini, this is a different config file for a
different service.
You don't expect Apache to switch to php.ini syntax just because
it's nice and familiar, do you?
It's a config for a part of PHP, not Apache. I do expect it to look
like everything else I configure in PHP. There appear to be good
reasons to separate it from php.ini - but not for having it use
different syntax.
> .ini is also easier than XML for mere mortals.
Now I was never an XML fan myself, but I think THIS particular XML config file
is even easier to read and understand than php.ini.
We can agree to disagree on that - it's subjective - but objectively
.ini is PHP's way of setting configuration, XML is not.
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
