Posted by Andy Hassall on 02/13/06 23:11

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'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").

--
Andy Hassall :: andy@andyh.co.uk :: http://www.andyh.co.uk
http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space :: disk and FTP usage analysis tool

[Back to original message]