"Jay Paulson" <jpaulson@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1247.198.214.140.171.1129296117.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >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 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
