|
Posted by "Dan Baker" on 10/14/05 19:08
"Jay Paulson" <jpaulson@sedl.org> wrote in message
news:1247.198.214.140.171.1129296117.squirrel@www.sedl.org...
>I just started working with a new company and they handed me some of their
> php code for me to look over. I noticed that they have a TON of include
> files being called into their scripts. For example, instead of having one
> file called functions.php and then having all their functions in that one
> file they have put each function into it's separate file and then have a
> define_functions.php file that creates each function. However, within the
> function itself it declared something like this:
>
> function xyz($abc) { return include(xyz_func.php); }
> function abc($xyz) { return include(abc_func.php); }
>
> I was wondering isn't this putting a bigger load on a server by including
> so many files for each function? Also, I was wondering what everyone's
> opinion was on this approach in terms of maintenance. Do you think it's
> better practice to put all your functions in one file or do it in this
> manner?
Fascinating!
The concept is that only the code that actually gets executed is ever
loaded/compiled. Pretty sneaky!
IF you had a gargantuan amount of code, that was tightly tied together --
yet, typically not much of it was really used on most pages -- this is a
pretty good design. I would be interested in some timing tests, but I'm
sure there is a point when this type of design would actually decrease the
load on the server (because, the only code that needs to be compiled is the
code that is executed).
DanB
[Back to original message]
|