|
|
Posted by GamblerZG on 10/15/05 01:18
>>The second one is by using two
>>different
>>apache modules. It *does not break anything*, but it's a pain to
>>setup.
>>
>>Judging sheerly by functionality and compatibility the second ways is
>>better.
>>
>>However, judging from what I know about PHP, nobody tries to make that
>>way easier, because everybody assume that everyone else use the first
>>way. Is it good old catch 22 in action, or are there some design
>>considerations I'm not aware of?
>
> A great number of people have worked on, and are working on, ways to
> make this easier.
>
> Most people, however, find it more practical to simply have 2
> different server configurations (old and new) and migrate clients onto
> the new server slowly, at the CLIENT'S pace, instead of losing
> customers by just trashing their site out from under them.
Actually, I was speaking about PHP developers. The sheer fact that they
bothered to write compatibility mode shows that they don't really count
on hosters using two engines side-by-side. On the other hand, the only
disadvantage of such approach is installation, and developers have the
power to remove this shortcoming. Since they preferred the first way of
handling compatibility, there must be some language design issues with
the second one. It would be interesting to know/discuss them.
--
Best regards,
Roman S.I.
http://sf.net/projects/naturalgine/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|