.cgi or .cgp or .py or ?

[Tim Hammerquist]

Hamish Lawson <hamish_lawson at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Tim Hammerquist wrote:
> 
> > You can at least take comfort in the fact that the
> > mass majority of P*** CGI scripts have either no extension or .cgi and
> > therefore do not "promote" their mother-language in the way you
> > described.
> 
> However, if you have scripts in various languages at your site, using
> the extension of .py may make it easier at some future date to migrate
> your Python scripts to being handled by something other than the
> universal CGI handler - for example, the Apache mod_python handler.

If I and my equals can't do a `head -3 scriptname` to find out what language
it is, we have many more problems than I thought.  =)

Besides, not having an extension at all allows a security feature via
obfuscation.  Remember Apaches trick of:

http://domainname.com/subdirectory/a-name/someword.html

...where a-name is actually the script?  If visitors think it's an html
file as it appears to be, they will be much less likely to try to hack
it.  Is this as feasible as a security measure thus?:

http://domain.com/stuff/a-name.py/someword.html

Just some considerations.  As I said in another post, use whichever
extension works best in any given situation.

HTH

-- 
-Tim Hammerquist <timmy at cpan.org>

Legend -- a lie that has attained the dignity of age.
	-- H. L. Mencken