received mg. On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM, George Wilson <rmwscbt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > >
