> check out http://us1.php.net/phar and >>> >> http://www.php.net/manual/en/**wrappers.phar.php<http://www.php.net/manual/en/wrappers.phar.php> >> currently this is the preferred method >> > > Preferred by whom, thank you very much? Who is it that has set > himself/itself up as The Authority on this subject?
the pear installer is shipped as a phar file, phpunit also provides phar releases, composer also provided as a phar file, phpdocumentor also available as a phar file, etc. I only talking about my personal experience, but it seems to me that currently phar is the preferred method for shipping single file php applications out there. > > > for shipping an application in a >> single file, as it is allows you to work those files and directories in >> the >> phar via most php functions as those would be normal files/directories on >> the disk so stuff like __LINE__ would point a valid path. >> > > The objective is not to perpetuate the idiocy of includes but to obviate > it. I fail to see how includes are an idiocy in general, similarly there is no clear winner in the dynamic linking vs static linking, but depends on your usecase. >From your primary comment I missed that your main reason for bundling everything into one file was for portability, depending on your userbase I would say that some dependency management tool (composer comes to mind) would serve that goal better, see: http://www.phptherightway.com/#dependency_management -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
