Le 9 décembre 2009 17:16, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> a écrit : > hi, > > 2009/12/9 Jérôme Loyet <jer...@loyet.net>: > >>>> We already discussed pros/cons of the two solutions. But why don't we >>>> allow several syntaxes ? And let the end user to choose the better one >>>> for its need ? >>> >>> No. Thank you. >>> EOD >>> >> >> and why of that ? Why is it already EOD wihtout arguing ? php-fpm just >> started in PHP core and there is willing from people to help and make >> php-fpm better, which I tought was the final goal. > > It is, however I have to agree with Tony here, adding a fpm specific > syntax makes little sense. Or do you have any killing arguments for > this new syntax (like not possible to do it otherwise, stoping point > etc.)? >
I don't have killing arguments I just came with a discussion which seems fair here. Now it's xml and before it's been integrated there were discutions about changing it to nginx. So I bring back the discution here. about multiple syntax it was a proposal which was about to make all users happy but the complexity and the confusion is a good argument, I heard it. So let have the question another way: Do we keep XML or do we switch to something else ? If so, which format ? I and some others think xml is not appropriate here because of the complexity. So I do think there is a need to change. INI or other ? INI is used widely in PHP and users know it. But it's not well adapted for the actual php-fpm configuration organisation. (properties in sections or subsections). If choosed how will it be organized ? If we want something else than XML and INI, we can use ngxin like or yaml configuration file, or other ... We have to decide to go forward here. ++ Jerome -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
