On 04/04/2013 07:04 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Joe Watkins <krak...@php.net> wrote:
On 04/04/2013 06:30 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
Joe Watkins <krak...@php.net> wrote:
Many extensions do not provide constants or functions to detect the way
they are configured, this may or may not expose those options, which is
better than not being able to expose those options by any reasonable
means.
Then those extensions should expose the required information. These are
bugs then.
More importantly, it does not only contain information about
extensions,
or which extensions are loaded and how ( I am aware of the problems of
using this kind of information as authoritative, I still say something
is better than nothing, see every 404 page in all modern browsers, why
not provide suggestions, even if they are wrong ).
Path information I figure could be useful while setting up software, so
The paths set during configure time don't have to match those where
things are installed. Especially admins might prefer to use symlinked paths
for configuration and users might be misled.
could many other configure time options, for example if more than one
SAPI was built at configure time, you might advise the use of the most
suitable SAPI for your software,
SAPIs might be built individually. Having them enabled during configure
time doesn't mean they are enabled or accessible by the user.
you might generate an ini file and
tell
the user where to put it (scandir), you might have the abnormal path to
php-config or other things distributed with php and installed in a
non-standard path (/opt/php-nts in example output).
configure options often won't tell-
There's a bunch of useful stuff in the configure command ... not just
extensions loaded ...
Yes and a lot of wrong information.
johannes
A combination of ENV, ini, phpversion and phpconfopt options should allow
you to make much more informed decisions or do nothing at all, there is not
a reasonable means to acquire this information, nor is it reasonable to
suggest that we modify every single bundled extension in order to expose
their configuration options, additional constants and maybe add new
functions/methods.
I keep using the words could, might, maybe, *on purpose*, I am aware that
the configuration time options may not match runtime parameters, I don't
think it falls to us to provide the business logic, so it doesn't really
matter that the setup may be completely different, it may be the same, or
similar. It may be vital information, it may also be completely irrelevant,
exposing it provides more flexibility than doing nothing at all.
Joe
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I don't see any useful production applications for this. However, I could
say the same thing about phpinfo() itself. From a debugging and QA
standpoint, on the other hand, this could be potentially useful. If, for
example, I was writing some sort of server analysis or troubleshooting
utility, it might be helpful for me to be able to grab the configure
command (or anything else in phpinfo(), for that matter) without having to
do a screen scape.
So even though the use case for this is somewhat narrow, I think it's
something we should have in place, anyway. You should definitely write an
RFC for this.
--Kris
I can't think of anywhere it's definitely useful, but I can think of
many places it might be, combined with the right logic, and other things
from environment/runtime/info etc ...
There's probably one or two server analysis tools in production out there :)
Hopefully, jpauli is still okay to move forward with an RFC, if the
implementation is any good ...
Writing bits of code, good fun, these long drawn out conversations and
those that are the result of RFC creation ... not so much ...
Joe
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
