Greetings all, I apologize if this email is really long. I manage a code base which has been maintained by at least 5 lead developers over the last 3 years- all coming from different backgrounds and approaches. Moral of the story- it is a scary ugly mess of a code base. I am in the process of refactoring the site to make things cleaner and more organized with the eventual goal of assuming an MVC or similar flavored OO architecture but that is a long term goal. I have about 485 source files to work with total. Here is the question. Step one in my plan is to reorganize everything and to centralize all of the site configuration. Eventually I will move to using namespaces and autoloaders but for now I am required to stick with include/requires. I am weighing out the costs and benefits of using include/require with absolute paths defined vs. using set_include_path. My very strong inclination is to use set_include_path and specifify a configuration folder (which I have already started using) and have every script include a script which points to that. I was wondering if there are any potential issues I should remain mindful of. I ask because as I have been looking into this feature, I see a lot of conflicting information regarding best practices. Here are the parameters I have to work with (for better or worse): 1) I am not permitted to use a .htaccess file per department policy- I may be able to set a path variable in httpd.conf but kinda want to avoid it since server configurations make management very nervous. 2) Namespaces, while a long term goal, are not feasible right now 3) The directory structure will change in time, I need a solution which refactors cleanly and safely (dynamically is nice too) Thank you in advance. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
