|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 02/14/06 03:56
Andy Hassall wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:13:59 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Andy Hassall wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:56:08 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jasen Betts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2006-02-11, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why not just include() the file?
>>>>>
>>>>>not reccomended for binary files - they might have <? in them somewhere...
>>>>
>>>>He didn't say the were binary files.
>>>>
>>>>And even if they were, he'd have exactly the same problem with
>>>>readfile() - which he is currently using.
>>>
>>> No, readfile() doesn't execute the file as PHP. include() does. They're very
>>>different..
>>
>>Please read the original post. He is not outputing a php file. It is
>>text - and would not be executed.
>
>
> PHP code _is_ text.
>
> What advantages does include() have over readfile() that makes you suggest it?
>
It solves the problem he's having - timeout of the PHP script when
downloading large files.
> It's dangerous and doesn't solve the problem in the original post (which
> doesn't actually say anything about what's in the files, or even whether
> they're "text" or "binary").
>
Sure it does. And the original post intimated they are text files -
because they are serverd with readfile().
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|