At 13:14 02/05/2002 -0700, Shane Caraveo wrote: >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > Isn't this all a bit of an overkill? > > > > Andi > >#5 probably is, it's a nicety, but I think the other items are relatively >necessary unless you are dependent entirely on Apache, which provides >extensive configurability. > >#1 would allow scripts that only are used on 'command line' to be better >configured with seperate ini files.
I really don't like #1. >#2 gets rid of needing a bunch of directories for multiple ini files, and >is very handy for #4. #2 makes sense. >#3 should be done irregardless (if it isn't already done), otherwise >server plugins will only be able to use ini files located in the os >directory. If you run both Apache and IIS on the same system, you may >well want different ini files for the two. That could be accomplised by >different installations as long as the sapi module detects it's own directory. Not sure how you see this exactly. Can you expand? >#4 is realy needed for systems running virtual servers under IIS. While >you can configure ini in the registry, it's a pain, especially if you want >to give users access to edit their own ini file, or you want different >extensions loaded for different servers that run under seperate dllhosts. Why not write a nice configuration GUI which edits your registry automatically? Sounds like a nice Windows project for someone on the list. Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
