| SitePoint Sponsor |
I'm looking to include a remote file via include() but Wayne said it shoudn't be done.
"Windows versions of PHP prior to PHP 4.3 do not support accessing remote files via this function, even if allow_url_fopen is enabled."
My developer runs 4.2 and it works fine, though. Wayne suggested to use Javascript, but was he correct in his assessment? I'd like to use PHP if possible.
Yes - it worked fine. Also, when doing a remote include like that, your accessing ONLY the HTML output.
Ryan, please stay out of this (he's my developer. Of _course_ he's putting his opinion in here!).
http://php.he.net/manual/en/features.remote-files.php
This is what I'm referring to. It's not completely supported.
AFAIK, that's true.Originally posted by geiger
"Windows versions of PHP prior to PHP 4.3 do not support accessing remote files via this function, even if allow_url_fopen is enabled."
- Matt
Dr.BB - Highly optimized to be 2-3x faster than the "Big 3."
"Do not enclose numeric values in quotes -- that is very non-standard and will only work on MySQL." - MattR
Want to explain why the windows servers i tried, worked?
Yes, but I can't. Perhaps if you'd stop getting offended for a moment you'd realize that the results you provided conflict with a standard. Looking into the matter is not quite murder.
Im offended for valid reasons. You wanted to make this as compatible as possible. Not all servers are going to have 4.3, correct, but also not all browsers are going to support JS or are going to have it enabled. I know plenty of people who have it turned off. That's where we meet. The majority of people will be running 4.3, and the majority of people will have JS enabled. I understand PHP.net and various other sources state that it doesnt work in < 4.3 , however, having tested it all night on various servers, i fail to see their validity. When you test something over and over again and it works perfectly, you begin to believe its right no matter what sources say. Any programmer can vouch for that. Just like alot of programmers, including i, have done things from valid sources that are supposed to work, and they dont.
Fine. Point taken. I'm going to see what some other SitePoint developers think and then will make a decision. Being informed isn't a crime.
Now, lets set our flamethrowers aside and work this out maturely, please.
What about fopen()?
use readfile(), it will give you the same results on remote servers, and work with PHP <4.3.0 on Windows servers.
Who walks the stairs without a care
It shoots so high in the sky.
Bounce up and down just like a clown.
Everyone knows its Slinky.
So. Who wants to buy FileTrack?
Why do both vBulletin and SitePoint use javascript includes instead of readfile()?
Sitepoint is vbulletin ...
"Powered by: vBulletin"
No, vBulletin's administration-end version check, & SitePoint's tip feed.
Got me, they probably have their reasons.
Because it will work more often than a server-side call will.
Mike
It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.
Ah, okay. right on!
Why do I recommend Javascript for this particular issue?
1) It moves the responsibility to the client and therefore is less resources.
2) If the server is down, the script will still work.
3) It is not doing anything crucial.
4) All servers will support it as well as all modern browsers.
5) You can put it behind a secure socket layer and not require add-ons like CURL on the customers server.
6) For the most part it is simple and easy to implement.
What server?2) If the server is down, the script will still work.
Obviously the one the script isn't on...
Mike
It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.
your server.. You are running an include off your server on the clients server... Hence the remote server call. If your server is down (and all servers go down from time to time, it is unescapable) then the script doesn't work.... PERIOD.Originally posted by DoobyWho
What server?
the way i had the PHP programmed, if the server went down, or the file didnt exist, the script didnt work either :-p . But i'll support the decision to use js for this.
Woa. After all that, you say JS is best, Ryan? lol, why?
Duh! I'm so stupid. You can check if the "includes" worked by checking if the variables exist. There's one variable in each version.inc (included file), so one can go by that.
lol
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks