16 апреля 2012 г. 11:05 пользователь Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com>написал:
> Arvids, > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godj...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/require with >> additional optional second param to allow for developers to define in place >> if he want's a pure PHP file to be included or a template file with direct >> HTML output? >> I like that proposal and take it over any other, because it gives >> developer a choice. And if things do not go the right way and he ends up >> screwing up somewhere - he is able to fall back to the old mode just by >> modifying the include/require statement (and in a MVC framework with >> autoload usage that would be 1-2 places in the whole project). >> All that stuff with keywords, removing <?php tags and using special >> extensions require a continuous effort from the developers, additional >> support from the IDE/editors/other tools. Do we really need all that just >> to give people the ability to load their scripts as a pure PHP code? >> To my mind a modification to the include/require statements is all there >> is required to add that extra thing that Kris want's so badly and does not >> require to change your habbits, IDE templates, waiting for IDE/editors/WEB >> source code highlight libraries/source analyzers/etc to catch up with the >> change. >> There is also a question I just raised that is not yet answered that the >> keyword/extension thing can just break the valid performance tweak >> technique, that is used extensively in any project with big code base. >> > > That may very well be the method proposed in my RFC, too. I haven't made > up my mind on that point as I'd like to cover the pros/cons a little more > in depth (including the potential perf issue you just raised). A handler > approach or something similar will still be necessary as well, since one > key reason for my RFC was to make it so that these scripts could be > executed directly via the webserver. But as for determining how PHP itself > can identify a .phpp file, I think the three best options are: Create new > tags, create new keywords, or create new parameters to existing keywords. > I keep bouncing back and forth on which one I think is best, which tells > me that I need to hear more debate on that. Thoughts? > > --Kris > > I would encourage you to take a deep look into modifying the include/require statements, because for all the issues popped out with .pphp and keywords they just don't exist with include/require. And there is no need to remove the <?php tags in source files - just make sure they start first thing in the file and there is no ?> at the end and hey (for my case - my IDE removes all leading and trailing spaces on file save), your include 'file', PHP_SOURCE_ONLY; works fine, but including a template fails (as does an image with embedded <?php ?> tags uploaded through a security hole) . It's clean (although some BC break would occur, but I think it's minor), simple and 100% voluntary. Any decently written 3rd party library will work without any modification (well, removing trailing ?> is a matter of simple script if required, but I haven't seen people putting ?> in the end for years).
