"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng**********@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab**************************@posting.google.c om...
Thanks for your comments. I could see, you're against to
"centralized" (ie, single index.php style as of phpNuke) architecture.
I could see the URLing style like index.php/foo as in
http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services becoming popular in php
websites. I first saw such style in phpPatterns of Harry Fuecks eg.
<http://www.phppatterns.com/index.php/article/archive/11/>. But
nowadays this style is becoming more popular in PHP.
Personally, I'm not much attracted by this style. But, just liked to
know how many liked that style.
Because there are more and more page-designers (as opposed to programmers)
using PHP, bringing with them their graphics oriented mindset. What they're
trying to accomplish is put a frame (top nav, side nav, tool bar, etc)
around some content in the middle of the page. Visually, it seems to make
sense to have this arrangement:
index.php:
[top nav HTML]
[side nav HTML]
<? include($content_path); ?>
[footer HTML]
From a functional point of view though, it really doesn't, since the main
functionality of that page is the stuff in the middle, while the frame
itself is of secondary importance. This is a better design:
article.php:
<?
include("header.php");
[ code that pull up the content ]
include("footer.php");
?>
because more control is given to the script that actually produces the
useful stuff. It could, for example, decide to use a slightly different
header because the content is wide and the page would look better with a
slimmer left nav, or it could forgo including the header altogether because
it's going to do a redirect. In a single entry point it wouldn't be able to
do the same as it has no control over the file that includes it.
