[geeklog-devtalk] geeklog-devel digest, Vol 1 #197 - 1 msg

[geeklog-devtalk-admin at lists.geeklog.net]

Send geeklog-devel mailing list submissions to
	geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	geeklog-devel-admin at lists.geeklog.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of geeklog-devel digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Mail.php vs. mail.php (Dirk Haun)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: "Dirk Haun" <dirk at haun-online.de>
To: <geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] Mail.php vs. mail.php
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:28:05 +0200
Organization: Terra Software Systems
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

I wrote:


>Anyone?


So, after taking this to the German PHP newsgroup <http://
groups.google.com/groups?th=2bb653212a8e3d0b> it seems we have 2 options:

1. Reorder the include path so that '.', i.e. the current directory, is
searched last.

2. Always use the included PEAR packages and include the PEAR files with
a full path.

I have a working implementation of 1. but I see that this may cause
problems with add-ons that simply use include('some-file.php') if "some-
file" happens to match the name of a PEAR package (or some other file
that's in an include path that's searched first).

So maybe we should go with 2. then? I mean, we have to include the
necessary PEAR packages anyway, so why not use them?

Any comments from a Geeklog 2 perspective, Tony?

bye, Dirk


-- 
http://www.haun-online.de/
http://mypod.de/



--__--__--

_______________________________________________
geeklog-devel mailing list
geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel


End of geeklog-devel Digest