Most efficient include extension?

[Kayn]

Hey php hax0rs,

My question is this:

What type of filse extension would be fastest for includes? I am using straight text files right now, which is along the lines of:
<? include ("blargy.txt"); ?>

Now, I hear that maybe including other php files would be faster, or maybe creating .inc files - which I'm not sure php interprets and reads. I'm a dummy.

I'm a begenning to moderate php code guy (leaning closer towards the beginning), and I'm a BIG fan of optimization and fast loading times. :)

Thanks!

[Freddie Bingham]

I don't believe it matters what extension you use as PHP is only opening a filehandle to the file and any extension is the same in that regard.

If you put .php as your extension then others can not open your include file from a web browser and view the source if you have your include file set a variable and then use that variable in the calling file. That is one benefit from using .php as your extension.

[Edited by freddie on 01-13-2001 at 01:09 AM]

[JohnM]

It all works exactly the same, but using .php (or whatever your php extension is...) makes sure people don't see your source code, as freddie said.

[Genotoxin]

Yup, they're all the same, except .php or some other extension keeps your source from being seen. Good if you want to keep your site less open to newbie ha><0rs.

[Toliman]

for added security I'd recommend keeping that includes outside of the document root, or in a subdirectory with a "deny from all" configure from apache..

[JohnM]

it really doesn't matter if you use the correct extension.