At 22:55 23/03/2010, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 03/23/2010 11:31 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
It's not clear at all. In fact I think it was very clear that using
php.ini syntax (together with sections if necessary) is very much an
option, and I think mostly everyone here leaned towards it.
Just take a look at it:
<
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3_FPM/sapi/fpm/php-fpm.conf.in?revision=292487&view=markup>http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3_FPM/sapi/fpm/php-fpm.conf.in?revision=292487&view=markup
How do you propose to describe the same set of options using php.ini syntax?
Yes, simple things like "value=Yes/No" or "value=DIR" fit just fine into php.ini.
But how would decribe a set of pools each with its own set of options?
(taking into account that some of these options may override global options)
By using syntax we're using everywhere else for configuration,
instead of introducing a brand new one.
This is not a php.ini, this is a different config file for a different service.
You don't expect Apache to switch to php.ini syntax just because it's nice and familiar, do you?
It's a config for a part of PHP, not Apache. I do expect it to look like everything else I configure in PHP. There appear to be good reasons to separate it from php.ini - but not for having it use different syntax.
.ini is also easier than XML for mere mortals.
Now I was never an XML fan myself, but I think THIS particular XML config file
is even easier to read and understand than php.ini.
We can agree to disagree on that - it's subjective - but objectively .ini is PHP's way of setting configuration, XML is not.
Zeev