Sebastian Nohn wrote:
> Jan Schneider schrieb:
>
>>I know this thread is ridden to death but I want to add
>>one argument for
>>completeness: If the cgi's name will be changed,
>>thousands of administrators
>>need to fix their servers. But if the cli's name will be
>>changed thousands
>>of "end users" of php cli scripts will have to change the
>>scripts' shebang line.
>>
>>I have no idea if there are more administrators who have
>>to care about php
>>cgi or users who use php cli. But at least the first
>>group will have less
>>problems fixing the name change than the latter.
>>
>
>
> PHP-CLI was experimental so far, so anyone who uses it has to be aware
> of any changes that can happen. PHP-CGI is very far from being
> experimental. I have no problem with all that renaming thing, but if we
> rename the CGI-PHP to php-cgi we should do it with php5, because more
> people will realize that a lot of things change between 4.x and 5.x.
> For psychological numbering-reasons people don't see any change between
> 4.2 and 4.3.
I guess Jan is trying to say, people are using CGI binary for
general scripting. If they want to switch to CLI for general
scripting, they have to rename binary to use CLI.
i.e. from "#!/usr/local/bin/php -q" to "#!/usr/local/bin/php-cli"
BTW, people may want to add ini_set('implicit_flush','off);
to all of their CLI scripts to prevent needless/redundant
flushing anyway, though. (CLI flushes on every output by
default not like CGI)
e.g. <?php echo "Hello world\n" ?> makes system flush output
twice on char devices, once for block devices.
Adding needless flushing is stupid, since flushing is rather
expensive as some of you know.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
