On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 05:18 07/10/2003, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >My big problem with this approach is that when variables_order does not > >include "S" then it seems inconsistent to have a partially populated > >$_SERVER array. If $_SERVER['argc'] is there, why aren't other normal > >$_SERVER variables available? The wtf factor is a little too high for my > >tastes. > > I think that making $_SERVER dependant on the settings of variables_order > was wrong to begin with (I may have caused it to be that way in the first > place, I don't remember, but all the same, it appears wrong). All the > tricks with variables_order/gpc_order were there to allow people to work > around problems with register_globals. Linking them with the auto globals > doesn't make any sense to me, and is the source of the wtf factor here to > begin with. > > The only reason one may want not to populate the auto-globals is > performance. I think that the cases where you would really like to disable > one of those are rare. I think that our best bet is to always populate the > auto globals, regardless of variables_order, and possibly provide means to > explicitly turn them off for performance reasons.
But the means to turn them off is variables_order. Being able to disable populating E and S can give a decent performance boost and for the most part you never need these. Having register_argc_argv being dependant on the variables_order setting is very confusing. If you specifically say you want to register argc/argv, then that is what should happen. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
