* "I. Gray" <phpsupport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Is there a big difference between me including a file by putting the url > in the include() such as > include("http://www.examplesite.com/examplefile.php) and putting the > server path such as > include("number/www.examplesite.com/public_html/examplefile.php") ? > > I want to get into good habits you see. > > I assume I have to use the first example when the file is on a different > server. >From a security standpoint, you usually only want to include and/or require files that are on your local system (your second example), unless under unusual circumstances (content sharing agreements with other sites, etc). Ideally, unless you want access to those scripts directly (i.e., http://www.examplesite.com/examplefile.php), you should place them somewhere in your include_path, which should be _outside_ the web server's document root. This prevents idle hacking attempts, and is generally considered a best practice. Additionally, using a network stream (which is what you're using when you specify 'http://') means that you've got additional performance overhead. Network streams are often more costly, resource wise, than file streams, and if the file truly is on a remote network, you then have to wait for that transaction to finish before continuing with your own processing. If you need to pull content off another server, but that content does not change often, you would be wise to have a background process running that pulls this content and caches it for use in your scripts. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney | WEBSITES: Webmaster and IT Specialist | http://www.garden.org National Gardening Association | http://www.kidsgardening.com 802-863-5251 x156 | http://nationalgardenmonth.org mailto:matthew@xxxxxxxxxx | http://vermontbotanical.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php