[Discussion] Is using phpdotenv a replacement for a `config.php`?

[JohnVillalovos]

Sorry for opening an issue. It doesn't look like this project has a "Discussion" option.

This is probably a dumb question.

For people who use phpdotenv do they still use a config.php type file? Or does phpdotenv replace the need for a config.php. Mostly I'm wondering is it common put all the configuration in .env and not use a config.php.

Thanks.

[victorInoa]

If you use vanilla php, the best use (for me) is setting in the .env the base configs than is different in your environments, then in configs.php setthings the thinks are equal for all enviroments.

ex.: batabases, base path for hidden content, smtp emails

[TheDigitalOrchard]

Not all configuration values need to be stored as Environment variables. In my applications, for example, only sensitive values, and those not to be committed to a Git repo, are stored in the ENV. My apps use a config.php file, and then populate some of the values from ENV values dynamically.

Example:

$config['non-sensitive-key'] = 'abc';
$config['sensitive-key']     = 'env:XYZ';   // populated using this library

[GrahamCampbell]

No, phpdotenv isn't a replacement for a config file — it's a way to load the environment-specific values (credentials, hostnames, API keys, anything that differs between deployments) that your configuration layer then consumes. The two answers above have it right: keep a config.php (or equivalent) for the structure and the values that are the same everywhere, and pull only the secrets and per-environment settings from the environment. In production, best practice is not to parse the .env file on every request at all, but to use it to compile a cached configuration once, the way Laravel's config:cache does, so there's no per-request I/O. Thanks for asking, and thanks to the commenters for the good answers — closing this as answered.