During the installation of WB on a new machine, I noticed that for the php.exe one is referred to the php.net site. However, using XAMPP is *much, much* easier, in terms of installation and support. Why doesn't WB recommend that?
An even easier option was included in the 2011 version of WB, namely a php.exe that came with WB, if I remember correctly. Although that probably did not offer sub options such as using .htacces files, beginners probably won't use that anyway. Why doesn't WB come with that anymore?
I'd think that it would be best of WB would still come with its own php.exe, and that users are referred to XAMPP if they want more sub options.
Suggestion to recommend XAMPP
Moderator: kfury77
Forum rules
Please follow these guidelines when posting feature requests. This will help to increase the value of your contribution.
Please follow these guidelines when posting feature requests. This will help to increase the value of your contribution.
- Do not create new topics for already requested features. Add your comments to the existing feature request topics instead;
- Create separate topic for each feature suggestion. Do NOT post a number of non-related feature suggestions in a single topic;
- Give your topic a meaningful title. Do NOT create topics with meaningless titles, such as "My Suggestion" or "My Problem".
Re: Suggestion to recommend XAMPP
When you preview PHP file on freshly installed WeBuilder, it offers to download PHP package from here: http://www.blumentals.net/lv/download-php.php. You probably used that one in 2011. It's also described in our help: http://help.blumentals.net/webuilder/php/dbgconfig.htm
Regarding XAMPP, there are many more similar ones (e.g. WAMP, Appserv). But those are all 3rd party and whether we like it or not, the official one still comes from php.net.
Regarding XAMPP, there are many more similar ones (e.g. WAMP, Appserv). But those are all 3rd party and whether we like it or not, the official one still comes from php.net.
Blumentals Software Programmer
Re: Suggestion to recommend XAMPP
True in itself, but during the installation one is referred to the php.net site. That's what counts more, I'd think.Aivars wrote:When you preview PHP file on freshly installed WeBuilder, it offers to download PHP package from here: http://www.blumentals.net/lv/download-php.php. You probably used that one in 2011. It's also described in our help: http://help.blumentals.net/webuilder/php/dbgconfig.htm
True in itself as well, but have you ever looked at how difficult it is to install the PHP module from php.net? I bet you three quarters of your clients, if not more, find that too difficult. Also, XAMPP comes with an SQL module, and has great support through their forum. WAMP and Appserv may offer the same thing, I don't know that, but I would certainly not recommend the standard PHP module from php.net. At least one should be referred to all those sites during the installation, I'd think.Aivars wrote:Regarding XAMPP, there are many more similar ones (e.g. WAMP, Appserv). But those are all 3rd party and whether we like it or not, the official one still comes from php.net.
It's your bizz, but if it were mine, I'd do it that way.
Re: Suggestion to recommend XAMPP
I found AMPPS http://www.ampps.com/ to work very well, and it runs on Windows, MacOS and Linux.