I have no idea if these emails are actually being received by the list (would someone mind confirming?) but after some consideration, I think I have a plan I can sell to management. It seems that the safest way to handle this is to just go ahead and add my configuration script directory to the include path and block web access to it. If I sell it on the basis of easing the transition to an MVC architecture, I think I can get them to go for it It seems like this is the only reasonable way to avoid coding relative paths to the configuration directory where my configuration scripts are located. A lot of the motivation for this project is to make fail-overs easier anyway and avoid downtime. If anyone has any input I would be glad to hear it. For the sake of historical documentation I will post my plan execution and results a little later down the road. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:02 PM, George Wilson <rmwscbt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Please disregard my question for now. I found a bunch of new > information which I think might provide the answer and save you guys > the keystrokes. I will follow up with what I find. > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:02 AM, George Wilson <rmwscbt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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
