Posted by Michael Fesser on 07/31/07 14:03

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>That's your opinion. But there are other, more efficient ways to do it.
>
>And if what you say is true, why don't Apache and PHP recommend it?
>They don't, though.

They don't say "don't do that" either.

>And they know best.

Not always. There are also some default options in the Apache config,
which are at least questionable. But that's another story.

>> There are, I already gave some. One reason was to have proper URLs
>> without a .php suffix. Of course there are other ways to do that, but
>> passing all pages through PHP is one way to achieve that goal and is
>> quite easy to setup. This _is_ a reason.
>
>No, you haven't given any good reasons for parsing all files as PHP.
>What you have done is given the most inefficient way possible to achieve
>that goal.

That's your opinion.

>Oh, but there are - a huge number of other things going on even before
>the parser gets involved - like loading the parser in that process or
>thread, setting up the PHP environment, parsing the URL, and so on.

Some of them can be avoided if PHP is installed as a module, some other
work is required for SSI as well.

>Parsing files for PHP unnecessarily is a waste of a lot of resources.

So are images in a DB, but we're moving in circles. I don't want to
waste any more of my own resources with that. You have your opinion,
I have mine. As usual.

EOD for me
Micha

[Back to original message]