On 13/04/12 10:04, Kris Craig wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, David Muir <davidkm...@gmail.com > <mailto:davidkm...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 13/04/12 09:38, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 2012/4/13 Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com > <mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com>>: > >> Per recent discussions, I have drafted an RFC for this. This > proposal > >> offers what I believe to be a more sane and realistic approach to > >> addressing the question of incorporating a new breed of > tag-less PHP > >> scripts. > >> > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpp > > This may work for LFI issue for new codes. > > Few questions. > > > > CLI may use .phpp as PHP script always. (i.e. execute w/o <?php > or else) > > It's like DOS, though. > > > > How do you enforce .phpp as script only for Web? > > Is it a rule for configuration? or .phpp just never supposed to > locate > > under docroot? > > It relates previous question. How about bootstrap script for > frameworks? > > > >> A regular .php script cannot be included from a .phpp script. > An E_WARNING will be thrown for include and an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR > will be thrown for require; in both instances, the included file > will be ignored. > > Some people may try to make .phpp handled by web. > > I cannot tell if this setting is going to be popular, but if it > > does, isn't it the end of embedded PHP? > > It might be good if PHP is more tolerant for this usage. > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Yasuo Ohgaki > > yohg...@ohgaki.net <mailto:yohg...@ohgaki.net> > > > > That's a huge WTF that a templating library can't be written as .phpp, > because it then won't be able to load a template. > > > That's actually not true. Please refer to the diagram embedded in the > RFC. > > Basically, you can load a template just fine-- you just can't do it > directly from a .phpp file, which you shouldn't be doing, anyway. The > .phpp file is, at least for the most part, intended to be included > from a regular .php file, which also would include whatever you're > using for your templates. In other words, they can interact just > fine; you just can't put the template upstream from a .phpp file in > the include stack-- which, again, you really shouldn't be doing, > anyway, as it's just bad architecture. >
How is this bad architecture? Every framework I've seen that has some kind of templating layer that handles the scope and inclusion of the template, and it happens further down the chain from the controlling code. Zend_View, Twig or Smarty would have to remain as .php and not .phpp, otherwise they wouldn't be able to render the templates. In the case of Zend Framwork, which I'm most familiar with, the application, front controller, dispatcher, and action controllers, and some services would have to remain as .php so that templates could be executed. Oh, and the autoloader can't be .phpp either. But then if it's .php, then the autoloader can't be called from .phpp files to include .php files. Cheers, David
