|
Let's assume you have a PHP file in /home/myapp/myfile.php. Then BASE_PATH would end up being /home/myapp/ at this point. So you'd want to do do something like require_once BASE_PATH . 'myfile.php';. Whereas before it was just require_once 'myfile.php';. However, this way the file will be included regardless of how the script is executed.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Oh. OK. That means since the main entry file is an html page, visible onsite, the base path would be it, and the require_once would be something like require_once BASE_PATH . '../../../myFile.php';, depending upon how many subdirectories it was above the directory. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind the path would no longer be relative to the actual file doing the including, but to the BASE_PATH constant. So if you had something like /home/myapp/mymodule/myotherfile.php that included some files in say /home/myapp/newdir/awesome.php, you'd want to do something like this require_once BASE_PATH . 'newdir/awesome.php';.
Keep in mind, BASE_PATH is only set once, in the main file that's first run. It's then in the global scope as other files are included. So all other files just reference it.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
So in my case, the top-level, visible file would have:
require_once BASE_PATH . '../../../phpPayPalController.php';
or however many levels were required, and all of the hidden files, below public, would also have the same thing, but the file names would be changed, i.e.,
require_once BASE_PATH . '../../../phpMyMailClass.php'; , even though they are all at the same location. That makes sense now.
Thanks! And Thanks for the time!
|
|
|
|
|
You wouldn't need to use .. in the path anymore. Think of BASE_PATH as pointing to the root of the application and all other files stem from that, not the actual file doing the including.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Responded via email, because it isn't really appropriate for the lounge (and hasn't been for a couple posts). Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
I accidentally deleted it. I usually do that with CP notifications and just go to the site to read them. So... mind sending it again?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I will post it here, then.
What you said has left me in a state of confusion. To simplify my case, say the landing page is at www.randommonkeyworks.com/landing.php, which is at [serverSpecificStuff]/home/user/public_html. This is what BASE_PATH will become because of the PHP declaration.
The main file included by that landing page is one subdirectory up, at [serverSpecificStuff]/home/user/, so it is hidden from the outside world, non-public. You've indicated I don't need to use the .. relative path inclusion technique like BASE_PATH . "..\hidden1.php" to get to it, but I can't see how that is possible because BASE_PATH points to the user subdirectory, not the home subdirectory.
Additionally, the hidden1.php includes 4 more files, say they are numbered 2 through 5. They are also at the home subdirectory, non-public. Therefore, unless PHP and the server are smart enough to expand the environment (or whatever magic is being done) to include the home subdirectory because it had to look for hidden1.php there, doesn't the hidden1.php file also need to include 2 - 5 as relative to the BASE_PATH, i.e., require_once (BASE_PATH . "..\hidden2.php");, and the same for the other three files?
Unless, maybe I added another line to the PHP:
define('HIDDEN_PATH', realpath(dirname(__FILE__)) . DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR . "..\");
(if that is the way to do it in PHP, which it probably isn't with my luck) in the landing.php file, and used that path for all includes everywhere. Perhaps that is what you were getting at, but just overlooked the fact that all the included files were not in BASE_PATH.
Many thanks for the time and trouble!
David O'Neil
|
|
|
|
|
I get what you're saying now. Then all that's needed to make the base directory one level higher. You can do that by calling dirname twice from landing.php like so:
define('BASE_PATH', realpath(dirname(dirname(__FILE__))) . DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR);
And then you could build on top of that to have a public path as well.
define('BASE_PATH', realpath(dirname(dirname(__FILE__))) . DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR);
define('PUB_PATH', BASE_PATH . 'public_html' . DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR);
So now BASE_PATH points to [serverSpecificStuff]/home/user/ and PUB_PATH points to [serverSpecificStuff]/home/user/public_html/ and you can use them as needed when including files.
There is one tiny caveat to this however, if the files are located just one level up from / then you'll end up with something like //, which isn't a valid directory. So as long as your files aren't directly in /home then you're good to go no matter where you put the files on the system and no matter how they are invoked.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
In the interest of rock-solid code. This would be the most fault-tolerant way:
$base = realpath(dirname(dirname(__FILE__)));
define('BASE_PATH', $base == DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR ? $base : $base . DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR);
define('PUB_PATH', BASE_PATH . 'public_html' . DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR);
require_once BASE_PATH . 'some/hidden/file.php';
require_once PUB_PATH . 'some/public/file.php';
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! Have a bunch of 5s!
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, to address some points...
Marc Clifton wrote: I despise silent exits, not even a little whimper of "$foobar" not defined.
Completely configurable. Use the debug version of php.ini that ships with your distribution while doing development. Error messages like this are turned off by default for production and for a good reason, you're supposed to have proper error handling.
Marc Clifton wrote: I detest prefixing variables with "$", it harks back to the days of BASIC ass$="you are".
That has to do with its Unix roots man. If you're done a lot of Perl and shell scripting, you'd be very familiar with the good ol' $.
Marc Clifton wrote: I piss on your brace style if ( condition ) {
Come on Marc, really?
Marc Clifton wrote: Which of course promotes non-OOD spaghetti code practices, which is what I'm fixing right now. It's a amazing to me how people can f**** up less than 500 lines of code into an untestable morass of garbage.
True, PHP allows for OO and procedural code. And that allows for crap code by some dev. But C++ also allows you to shoot yourself in the foot and we don't blame the language.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. Thanks for the feedback. I will fuss with the ini file, that'll be really helpful as, without intellisense, I make a lot of stupid mistakes.
Speaking of which, I'm using this nifty plug-in (it's something like $75) for Visual Studio that does a lot of the syntax highlighting and intellisense stuff, and most awesome of all, I can debug PHP code right in the IDE!
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Come on Marc, really?
I know, that was low. I really don't like that style of bracing though, I find it harder to visually distinguish code outside the if block with code on the inside.
Again, thanks for the great feedback!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Speaking of which, I'm using this nifty plug-in (it's something like $75) for Visual Studio that does a lot of the syntax highlighting and intellisense stuff, and most awesome of all, I can debug PHP code right in the IDE!
You and me too man and I use PHP daily. And yet, at the age of 35 me and intellisense are best buds Also, I've seen that plug-in, if I wasn't using PhpEd like crack-cocaine I'd give it a whirl.
Marc Clifton wrote: I know, that was low. I really don't like that style of bracing though, I find it harder to visually distinguish code outside the if block with code on the inside.
Not sure I follow. It's no different than the C-family where white space is not important. This is perfectly valid PHP code:
<?php
namespace Application;
class MyClass extends BaseClass
{
public function MyFunction()
{
if(blah)
{
}
}
}
?>
Marc Clifton wrote: Again, thanks for the great feedback!
Any time man, you know I got your back. Ask away any question you have.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Any time man, you know I got your back. Ask away any question you have.
I just had fun with this little piece of code:
array_walk_recursive($xmlResponse, array ($xml, 'addChild'));
Turns out array_walk_recursive passes the K=>V as $value, $key, and the XmlSimpleElement of course wants $element, $value.
Now, I did not write that code, I'm just fixing what someone else wrote. Sure was funny though when (after considerable massaging) I ran my unit test and the element/values were backwards! It is odd though that array_walk_recursive doesn't provide the params as $key, $value, but it's actually much more annoying that the programmer who used that function used it incorrectly for the task at hand.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Oh you're gonna find some "oddities" in there like that. I totally agree it would make more sense to order it key then value, like when doing a foreach loop.
That being said, there are better ways to traverse an XmlSimpleElement object. Unless it's been properly converted, treating it as a straight array will run into issues, and you'll loose XML metadata attributes, etc.
At the very least, if you're using PHP 5.5, you could do something like this with an anonymous function to at least make it a ton more readable...
array_walk_recursive($xmlResponse, function($item, $key)
{
});
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: That being said, there are better ways to traverse an XmlSimpleElement object.
In this case, "xmlResponse" is an array to generate the XML response. As it is, I simply coded it like this:
function XmlAsString($array)
{
$xml = new SimpleXMLElement('<response/>');
foreach($array as $key => $value)
{
$xml->addChild($key, $value);
}
return $xml->asXML();
}
which does correctly what was originally intended.
I'm having to use PHP 5.4, but I like your anonymous function example, very cool. I think that actually works in 5.4 as well, but not sure.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: which does correctly what was originally intended.
Gotcha. Yeah that first example did not get that point across at all. My condolences.
Marc Clifton wrote: I think that actually works in 5.4 as well, but not sure.
Yup, 5.4 should support them too. Ever since 5.3 I think.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Oh one thing I should say is there is a bit of type safety in PHP. For instance, you can ensure a passed parameter is an array or type of object. The loose type thing is more for intrinsic simple types. Using your example...
function XmlAsString(array $array)
{
$xml = new SimpleXMLElement('<response/>');
foreach($array as $key => $value)
{
$xml->addChild($key, $value);
}
return $xml->asXML();
}
Notice the function signature now. If an array is not passed to it an error will be thrown.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Javascript is a lot worse, at least in PHP you can configure it to give "variable not defined" warnings (error_reporting(E_STRICT);)
|
|
|
|
|
Give us a free C# based scripting language that runs on cheap Linux boxes as easy as PHP and we'll use it...
|
|
|
|
|
Still, it's a little goofy that I did not win anything yet. It would be great to see the winning combinations and how much is currently in the jackpot. And perhaps some animations...
What do you mean, CP does not have a slot machine? It's right there, the orange bar above the posts! The four windows are labeled 'Spacing', 'noise', 'Layout' and 'Per Page'. Ok, must be some kind of theme.
Anyway, when I come to CP from work, I am usually not logged in and every time there are totally random settings in this bar. It's very irritating. How did you program this anyway? I hope you did not really use a random number generator to annoy those who are not willing to log in.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
We use a random number generator.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Great! So, what are the prizes?
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
The logic is:
1. If you're logged in, get your preferences based on your member ID
2. If not, get your preferences based on a cookie.
If you have a cookie and then log in, and you already have preferences associated with your membership, replace your cookie'd preferences with your member preferences. The algorithm to work out which preferences to use in a tie-breaker scenario are known only to two people on the planet who are not allowed to fly on the same plane at the same time.
If you then log on using another machine you'll get your merged preferences. If you have cookie settings on that second machine then they too will get merged.
So: if you've been changing your settings on lots of different machines while not logged in, eventually, when you log in on those machines, your preferences will get combined.
If you're seeing our Random Preference Generator™ in action while logged on on two different machines then send me an email (chris@...) and I'll dig in.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
