I've standardized my PHP programming to use the environment variable
SCRIPT_NAME when I want my script to refer to itself in links and form
actions. I've known that
PHP_SELF has the same information, but I was more
familiar with the name
SCRIPT_NAME from using it in perl, and liked the feel
of it more as it seems to describe the resource better (
PHP_SELF could stand
for the path to the PHP executable if I were to go by the name only).
However, I just noticed a post on the php.general newsgroup where somebody asked
what the difference was between them. Semantically, there isn't any; they should
contain the same information. However, historically and technically speaking,
SCRIPT_NAME is defined in the CGI 1.1 specification, and is thus a
standard. However, not all web servers actually implement it, and thus it
isn't necessarily portable.
PHP_SELF, on the other hand, is implemented
directly by PHP, and as long as you're programming in PHP, will always be
Guess I have some grep and sed in my future as I change a bunch of scripts…
Occasionally, I've needed to process a lot of information from a script, but I don't want to worry about PHP timing out or the user aborting the script (by clicking on another link or closing the window). Initially, I investigated register_shutdown_function() for this; it will fire off a process once the page finishes loading. Unfortunately, the process is still a part of the current connection, so it can be aborted in the same way as any other script (i.e., by hitting stop, closing the browser, going to a new link, etc.).
However, there's another setting initialized via a function that can override this behaviour — i.e., let the script continue running after the abort. This is ignore_user_abort(). By setting this to true, your script will continue running after the fact.
This sort of thing would be especially good for bulk uploads where the upload needs to be processed — say, for instance, a group of images or email addresses.
In the past two days, I've seen two references to Practical PHP Programming, an online book that serves both as an introduction to programming with PHP5 and MySQL as well as a good advanced reference with many good tips.
This evening, I was browsing through the Performance chapter (chapter 18), and
found a number of cool things, both for PHP and MySQL. Many were common sense
things that I've been doing for a while, but which I've also seen and shaken my
head at in code I've seen from others (calculating loop invariables at every
iteration, not using variables passed to a function, not returning a value from
a function, not using a return value from a function). Others were new and gave
me pause for thought (string concatenation with the '.' operator is expensive,
especially when done more than once in an operation;
echo can take a comma
Some PHP myths were also dispelled, some of which I've been wondering about for awhile. For instance, the amount of comments and whitespace in PHP are not a factor in performance (and PHP caching systems will often strip them out anyways); double quotes are not more expensive than single quotes unless variable interpolation occurs.
It also has some good advice for SQL optimization, and, more importantly, MySQL
server optimization. For instance, the author suggests running
OPTIMIZE TABLE table; on any table that has been added/updated/deleted from to any large
extent since creation; this will defrag the table and give it better
VARCHAR() saves on space, but
MySQL has to calculate how much space was used each time it queries in order to
determine where the next field or record starts. However, if you have any
variable length fields, you may as well use as many as you need — or split off
variable length fields (such as a
TEXT() field) into a different table in
order to speed up searching. When performing
JOINs, compare on numeric fields
instead of character fields, and always
JOIN on rows that are indexed.
I haven't read the entire book, but glancing through the TOC, there are some potential downfalls to its content:
DB), but in the examples rarely uses them.
All told, there's plenty of meat in this book — I wish it were in dead tree format already so I could browse through it at my leisure, instead of in front of the computer.
Those who know me know that I love linux and open source. One particular program that firmly committed me to open source software is the Mozilla project — a project that took the Netscape browser's codebase and ran with it to places I know I never anticipated when I first heard of the project.
What do I like about Mozilla? Well, for starters, and most importantly, tabbed browsing changed the way I work. What is tabbed browsing? It's the ability to have multiple tabs in a browser window, allowing you to switch between web pages without needing to switch windows.
Mozilla came out with a standalone browser a number of months back called, first Phoenix, then Firebird, and now Firefox. This standalone browser has a conservative number of basic features, which allow for a lean download — and yet, these basic features, which include tabbed browsing and disabling popups, far surpass Internet Explorer's features. And there are many extensions that you can download and integrate into the browser.
One such extension is a tabbed browsing extension that makes tabbed browsing even more useful. With it, I can choose to have any links leaving a site go to a new tab; or have bookmarks automatically load in a new tab; or group tabs and save them as bookmark folders; or drag a tab to a different location in the tabs (allowing easy grouping).
Frankly, there's few things I can find that Firefox can't do.
And, on top of that, it's not integrated into the operating system. So, if you're on Windows, that means if you use Firefox, you're less likely to end up with spyware and adware — which often is downloaded and installed by special IE components just by visiting sites — ruining your internet experience.
So, spread the word: Firefox is a speedy, featureful, SECURE alternative to Internet Explorer!
I've had a few people contact me indicating interest in Cgiapp, and I've noticed
a number of subscribers to the freshmeat project I've setup. In addition, we're
using the library extensively at the
National Gardening Association in developing our new
site (the current site is using a mixture of ASP and Tango, with several newer
applications using PHP). I've also been monitoring the
mailing list. As a result of all this activity, I've decided I need to develop a
roadmap for Cgiapp.
Currently, planned changes include:
Version 1.x series:
stripslashes(the Smarty "function" call will be
param()bugfix: currently, calling
param()with no arguments simply gives you a list of parameters registered with the method, but not their values; this will be fixed.
CGI::ApplicationML brought up and implemented the idea of an
error_mode()method to register an
error_modewith the object (similar to
run_modes()). While non-essential, it would offer a standard, built-in hook for error handling.
$PATH_INFOtraversing. Again, on the
CGI::AppML, a request was brought up for built-in support for using
$PATH_INFOto determine the run mode. Basically, you would pass a parameter indicating which location in the
$PATH_INFOstring holds the run mode.
Version 2.x series:
Yes, a Cgiapp2 is in the future. There are a few changes that are either necessitating (a) PHP5, or (b) API changes. In keeping with PEAR guidelines, I'll rename the module Cgiapp2 so as not to break applications designed for Cgiapp.
Changes expected include:
Inherit from PEAR. This will allow for some built in error handling, among
other things. I suspect that this will tie in with the
may also deprecate
load_tmpl(). In the perl version, you would
instantiate a template using
load_tmpl(), assign your variables to it,
and then do your
fetch() on it. So, this:
$this->tmpl_assign('var1', 'val1'); $body = $this->load_tmpl('template.html');
Becomes this: ```php $tmpl = $this->load_tmpl(); $tmpl->assign('var1', 'val1'); $body = $tmpl->fetch('template.html'); ``` OR ```php $tmpl = $this->load_tmpl('template.html'); $tmpl->assign('var1', 'val1'); $body = $tmpl->fetch(); ``` (Both examples assume use of Smarty.) I want to revert to this behaviour for several reasons: - Portability with perl. This is one area in which the PHP and perl versions differ greatly; going to the perl way makes porting classes between the two languages simpler. - Decoupling. The current set of template methods create an object as a parameter of the application object — which is fine, unless the template object instantiator returns an object of a different kind. Cons: - Smarty can use the same object to fill multiple templates, and the current methods make use of this. By assigning the template object locally to each method, this could be lost. HOWEVER… an easy work-around would be for `load_tmpl()` to create the object and store it an a parameter; subsequent calls would return the same object reference. The difficulty then would be if `load_tmpl()` assumed a template name would be passed. However, even in `CGI::App`, you decide on a template engine and design for that engine; there is never an assumption that template engines should be swappable. - Existing Cgiapp1 applications would need to be rewritten.
Plugin Architecture: The
CGI::App ML has produced a
namespace that utilizes a common plugin architecture. The way it is done
in perl is through some magic of namespaces and export routines… both of
which are, notably, missing from PHP.
However, I think I may know a workaround for this, if I use PHP5: the
__call() overloader method.
My idea is to have plugin classes register methods that should be
accessible by a Cgiapp-based class a special key in the
__call() method would check the key for registered methods; if
one is found matching a method requested, that method is called (using
call_user_func()), with the Cgiapp-based object reference as the first
reference. Voilá! instant plugins!
Why do this? A library of 'standard' plugins could then be created, such as:
Since the 'exported' methods would have access to the Cgiapp object, they could even register objects or parameters with it.
If you have any requests or comments on the roadmap, please feel free to contact me.
The new weierophinney.net/matthew/ site is now up and running!
The site has been many months in planning, and about a month or so in actual coding. I have written the site in, instead of flatfiles, PHP, so as to:
I've written it using a strict MVC model, which means that I have libraries for accessing and manipulating the database; all displays are template driven (meaning I can create them with plain-old HTML); and I can create customizable applications out of various controller libraries. I've called this concoction Dragonfly.
There will be more developments coming — sitewide search comes to mind, as well as RSS feeds for the blog and downloads.
Ever wonder what's keeping that device in use so you can't unmount it? It's
happened to me a few times. The tool to discover this information?
Basically, you type something like:
lsof /mnt/cdrom and it gives you a
output detailing the PID and process of the processes that are using the cdrom.
You can then go and manually stop those programs, or kill them yourself.
Okay, so that's actually direct quotes from the article. I took issue with it, immediately — I use Smarty for everything I do, and the decision to do so was not done lightly. I have in fact been advocating the use of template engines in one language or another for several years with the various positions in which I've been employed; I think they are an essential tool for projects larger than a few pages. Why?
So, reading the aforementioned article really got my hackles up. However, it got me thinking, as well. One issue raised is that PHP can be used as your templating language. While I can understand why this might be desirable — everything from load issues to flexibility — I also feel that this doesn't give enough abstraction.
Using PHP seems to me to be inefficient on two fundamental levels, based on my understanding of The Pragmatic Programmer:
The author of the article also makes a case for teaching web designers PHP — that the language is sufficiently easy to pick up that they typically will be able to learn it as easily, if not more easily, than a template language. I agree to a degree… But my experience has shown that web designers typically struggle with HTML, let alone PHP. (Note: my experience in this regard is not huge, and I'm sure that this is an exaggeration.) I find that it's typically easiest for me to give an example template, explain what the funny, non-HTML stuff can do, and let them go from there. Using this approach, they do not need to learn anything new — they simply work with placeholders.
Still, I think the author raises some fine points. I wish he'd bothered to do more research into why people choose template engines and the benefits that arise from using them before simply outright slamming them. Of course, the article is also a bit dated; it was written over two years ago, and much has changed in the world of PHP and many of its template engines. I'm curious as to whether they would feel the same way today.
Me? My mind is made up — the benefits, in my circumstances, far outweigh any costs associated. I'll be using template engines, and Smarty in particular, for years to come.
I'd read that you could get binary packages for gentoo, thus alleviating the need to compile everything. (Of course, then you lose some of the benefits of compiling everything, but you gain in speed…) Unfortunately, I mistook this with ebuilds, and never quite figured it out.
The key is to throw the
$ emerge -g gnumeric # which is like 'emerge --getbinpkg gnumeric'
I also learned how to update packages tonight:
$ emerge sync # to sync your mirror with the gentoo mirrors $ emerge --update portage # if necessary $ emerge --update system # updates core system files $ emerge --update world # updates all packages
I've had a bunch of problems with my new computer — it uses ACPI, but if I load the ACPI modules, it won't boot; if I don't load them, I have to go through contortions to get the ethernet working, and it won't power down; and a bunch of other little stuff.
So, a few weeks ago, I thought, what the heck? Why not try Gentoo? I've been reading about it since it first came out, and I remember talking with Duane about it once, and it has a reputation for both being cutting edge and stable. Heck, even Wil Wheaton's endorsing it… it can't be all bad, right?
I had a few misstarts — bad CDs, not quite getting how the chroot thing worked, problems with DNS (which I still don't understand; and Rob has them as well, so it's not just me). But once I got it installed… well, I'm impressed.
The thing about Gentoo is, it compiles everything from source. It's like Debian, in that it fetches all dependencies and installs those… but it's all source. So it's not exactly fast. But because everything is compiled, and because you setup C flags specific to your machine, what you get is incredibly optimized for your own machine. This 1.6GHz machine simply flies. And the memory usage just stays low.
I'd like to use it for my server… but I can't really take the server down at this point when it's making both my mom and myself money. But what a great system… I only wish I'd used it for the mail server at work.