Puzzled wrote:[color=blue]
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Puzzled wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Oli Filth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Puzzled said the following on 18/10/2005 17:54:
>>>>
>>>>>If I use a fully qualified include call
>>>>>
>>>>> include ( 'http://localhost/subtree/filename.php')
>>>>>
>>>>>I get an 'undefined function' error when calling a routine that's
>>>>>defined in that file.
>>>>
>>>>This is an absolute *HTTP* URL, not an absolute *filesystem* URL. So it
>>>>obtains filename.php by performing an HTTP request to the specified
>>>>server, which just happens to be "localhost" in this case.
>>>>
>>>>And of course, a server set up to parse and execute PHP files will parse
>>>>and execute filename.php when it's requested, so all your include() call
>>>>sees is the output result of filename.php.
>>>
>>>I think I must be missing something important still, because I don't
>>>understand what you said. Check me on this, would you?
>>>
>>>A URL is just another filesystem reference, but using a highly
>>>generalized syntax that's independent of o/s and physical
>>>location--like NFS, but more general. So any processing that would
>>>be done or not done to a file would be independent of the type of
>>>reference used to retrieve it.[/color]
>>
>>In this case, not really, because the URL is prefixed with "http://",
>>which specifies "Go and get this resource using the HTTP protocol".
>>
>>The fact is that you're requesting "filename.php" via HTTP. PHP doesn't
>>know that you're expecting it to implicitly convert
>>"http://localhost/..." to a local filesystem reference, so it simply
>>sends out an HTTP request for that file, just as if you'd typed
>>"http://localhost/.../filename.php" into your browser.
>>
>>The request just so happens to be to your own server, which serves this
>>request by processing filename.php spitting the output back as the HTTP
>>response. This HTTP response is then included into the original PHP
>>file.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>When the php interpreter knows it's operating on an include file, it
>>>should know enough not to start a new symbol table, but instead add
>>>things like function definitions to the existing symbol table it
>>>started building when it read up the outermost file.[/color]
>>
>>This is impossible, because filename.php is processed in a completely
>>separate instance to the original PHP file, serving an entirely
>>separate HTTP request.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Is that what's causing the problem, the fact that I'm using a .php
>>>extension on the include file?
>>>
>>>That would make a crazy sort of sense, since the php interpreter would
>>>do its own filesystem fetches, but might hand any url reference, even
>>>one for an include, off to Apache to satisfy. And somewhere in that
>>>process, the fact that it's just an include file is getting pushed and
>>>the file is being interpreted as though it were a completely new job.
>>>Whereas if it had some .inc or .foo extension, Apache wouldn't try to
>>>pass it through the interpreter, but would just hand it over.[/color]
>>
>>Yup, that's the explanation in a nutshell (except that the first PHP
>>instance doesn't request filename.php directly from Apache, it does it
>>via an HTTP request which lands at Apache indirectly).
>>
>>The simplest solution would be to not include() local files via HTTP.
>>
>>Even if you renamed your include files to .inc extensions, this would
>>be insecure, since anyone could request them via HTTP and view your
>>source code.[/color]
>
>
> Again thanks for another prompt response (more prompt than mine, since
> everyone's having phone problems around here due to rain)
>
> So it sounds as though there's no really good, general solution.
> Either I use an extension that doesn't trigger interpretation, and
> suffer code-snooping, or I keep duplicate copies on each server and
> load using relative refs. *sigh*
>
> Many thanks for the deconfusion!
>
> - less-Puzzled-now[/color]
PMJI, but I think you're better having duplicate copies of your code on
each server.
For instance - what happens if the server holding the (single) copy of
your code goes down? It does happen! :-) None of the other servers would
be able to access the code - and all would effectively be down.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
