SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80
  1. #51
    SitePoint Addict psyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cedar Rapids
    Posts
    295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Im not a big fan of all the PEAR classes. I see its uses, but when I only use MySQL, I see no point in loading a class that can handled everything.

    I have a few classes I wrote for my own use. I reuse them on alot of my sites. Each site has an init.inc.php that is included, that sets up the environment for the site by including the classes and creating some globals.

    The problem I have is managing my reusable code. My sites are either on different server, or in site sandboxes, so when ever I update a class, I have to copy it over to all my other sites. I had one case where I started off by using standard arrays for database rows, then later moved to associative arrays in the class. All the sites that had used the normal arrays had to be updated to use the new database class.

    I guess what im trying to say is... Once you get your framework or code snippets how you like them, just make sure you have a central place to load them from so you can manage them easier.

  2. #52
    SitePoint Wizard DougBTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Bath, UK
    Posts
    2,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arborint
    ...were not involved because it was difficult to follow after a point.
    I was *****ing by page two
    Hello World

  3. #53
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DougBTX
    I was *****ing by page two
    I think a lot of people were. As I have said several times, your involvement would have improved the process (or had you just totally *****ing by page 92 )
    Christopher

  4. #54
    SitePoint Wizard DougBTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Bath, UK
    Posts
    2,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ugh, right, any framework we build, can we make sure it doesn't have a profanity filter? I have no idea what you thought I said

    A framework based on the original PHP4 DI might be interesting. It would have good support for PHP0.8.

    Douglas
    Hello World

  5. #55
    SitePoint Addict mx2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    actually i ran across people building a petstore application in prado, i don't know if its finished, (as i have to get my head around a bunch of infragistic controls..., again lack of documentation is a killer).

    http://www.xisc.com/wiki/index.php/PetStore:Guide (some db uml).

    a modular meta framework would be nice, but how to do that solidly in php, i don't have a clue.

  6. #56
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mx2k
    actually i ran across people building a petstore application in prado, i don't know if its finished, (as i have to get my head around a bunch of infragistic controls..., again lack of documentation is a killer).

    http://www.xisc.com/wiki/index.php/PetStore:Guide (some db uml).
    Well take you pick. We have PHP4 DI and Skeleton here on this list that could be the basis for a Pet Store demo. Or go the WACT, Mojavi, Prado way.
    Quote Originally Posted by mx2k
    a modular meta framework would be nice, but how to do that solidly in php, i don't have a clue.
    We keep getting closer. A couple more go rounds and we may just get there. It is actually not as difficult as it seems. It is more a people problem than a software problem.
    Christopher

  7. #57
    SitePoint Addict mx2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well i have a working prototype of a template engine and i'm going to do something similar to prado, but without the amount of specs, or limitations to keywords like com or prop. with the amount of code in it, i'm surprized at how fast it works.

    and just some extra thoughts, tag libraries for any sort of templates or classes would be useful for people who like to use ide's and editors. thats where meta data comes in handy. it would be nice for php to have one really solid ide, but that isn't going to happen, so probably making tags for the top5 would go along way in making a framework usable and increase it's appeal.

    i know that there is a new dreamweaver coming out that is supposed to have better support for php, but i don't know how much better. but it would be cool that like meta data tags and be able to write plugins that generate properties and etc from those tags for an editor.

  8. #58
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    841
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arborint
    It is actually not as difficult as it seems. It is more a people problem than a software problem.
    Which makes the problem more difficult than it seems, not less.

    A portal style page that composes smaller units, Alternate views of the same data (say HTML and RSS) are examples of View code (which I know is a big part of WACT). But there is so much variety in this area that I think some sort of supporting view controllers is a far as we should go.

    A Many to Many relationship and A mass delete/edit option seem like they are part of the Model and I think that's where frameworks start biting off more than they can chew. A sub-project could deal with these.
    They may not be easy, but I think its necessary to have the composition, many to many, and mass edit use cases. These are common cases to encounter when developing a production web app. Frameworks should be evaluated on how well they support difficult things. These are cases a mature framework should support.

    Mass edit is more about forms than the model.

    I also think its necessary to have at least three CRUD tables to highlight duplicate code. Having an HTML and an RSS view also helps highlight where code may be duplicated between the two views. If the example application is too trivial, it is hard to get a sense of where the duplicated code lies. These represent missed opportunities for the frameworks.

    Trust me on this, I've spent the last two years collecting use cases of things that WACT does not do well or doesn't do at all. A framework comparison should address the difficult things.

    For that reason, I would rather see a naive PHP reference implementation that does not use external libraries. This gives a common point for comparison purposes and also can be used to help extract a framework. Most of all, it avoids a bias toward one framework by implementing features that are easy in that framework and avoiding features that are difficult in that framework.

  9. #59
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Selkirk
    Which makes the problem more difficult than it seems, not less.
    Which is what I meant: the technical problems are managable, the people problems, for this type of volunteer development, depend on getting lucky and getting the right group of people who will manage themselves within the goals of the project.
    Quote Originally Posted by Selkirk
    They may not be easy, but I think its necessary to have the composition, many to many, and mass edit use cases. These are common cases to encounter when developing a production web app. Frameworks should be evaluated on how well they support difficult things. These are cases a mature framework should support.

    Mass edit is more about forms than the model.

    I also think its necessary to have at least three CRUD tables to highlight duplicate code. Having an HTML and an RSS view also helps highlight where code may be duplicated between the two views. If the example application is too trivial, it is hard to get a sense of where the duplicated code lies. These represent missed opportunities for the frameworks.

    Trust me on this, I've spent the last two years collecting use cases of things that WACT does not do well or doesn't do at all. A framework comparison should address the difficult things.
    I certainly defer to your experience in this area. I think my comments were more pertaining to the Skeleton codebase which is more of a blank slate than WACT which is has a specific direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Selkirk
    For that reason, I would rather see a naive PHP reference implementation that does not use external libraries. This gives a common point for comparison purposes and also can be used to help extract a framework. Most of all, it avoids a bias toward one framework by implementing features that are easy in that framework and avoiding features that are difficult in that framework.
    My concern again is the framework vs codebase decision. Frameworks tend to be monolithic whereas codebases use external stuff.
    Last edited by arborint; Sep 10, 2005 at 12:51.
    Christopher

  10. #60
    SitePoint Zealot asmictech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi,
    i saw someone made mention of pear, what do you think about that.
    It is a great framework to jump to.
    Success is achieved and maintained by those who keep trying.

    www.ngportal.net

  11. #61
    SitePoint Addict mx2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by asmictech
    Hi,
    i saw someone made mention of pear, what do you think about that.
    It is a great framework to jump to.
    well pear is a code library, not a framework. and the use of pear is advocated by some and others like myself find it somewhat unuseful.

  12. #62
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    optimus prime, I had exact the same question. You might find this thread useful: http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295377

    My findings:
    1. There is no killer php framework at the moment.
    2. It's faster to do your own thing than a)learn and adjust the new framework and b)realize that the particular framework may actually limit your options.

    What I am doing right now is finding classes all over the net and writing my own interfaces to them to adjust it to my style of thinking/coding.

    Hope this helps some.

  13. #63
    SitePoint Addict KJedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ukraine, Nikolaev
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My personal opinion:
    the best way to write applications faster is to use your OWN classes, modules and something like that.
    Why?
    Because you know exactly, why it is doing that thing, why it doesn't work and how it works. Personally I started developing my modules and classes not long ago.
    Before I used procedural approach. And if I wanted to use some of my previous code, I had to look for the function that does the thing I wanted or cut-and-paste a fragment from one function to another. With the help of classes everything is much more perfect:
    For example, nearly every project needs news module. I wrote my class, which implements
    adding, deleting, editing of the news, displaying news list, and all things like that. It took me 1 day to do that. But now I use it where I need. Of course, if I'll need to integrate this news block with users&admins system I'll have to do MINOR changes to that class, not to the class itlself, but to the templates for that engine. So, now I am to change templates from project to project and integrate that classes. That's all! It becomes somthing like framework, that I wrote myself

  14. #64
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Take a look at XtraPHP from Triplehash (http://www.triplehash.com). It's a commercial (but cheap) PHP framework. It brings some of the benefits of ASP.net to PHP. There are all the basic controls, an event-driven style of programming and automatic state management (like ASP.net's ViewState). Major timesaver.

    I find it makes more sense to use a pre-made framework. Firstly, it lets you focus more on what you want and less on how you want to achieve it.

    XtraPHP is really easy to use and has lower "barriers to entry" than most.

    Good luck!

  15. #65
    Web developer Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    sweden
    Posts
    320
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I did not notice this until today but since I am studying Ruby on Rails but am having a heck of a time finding a dev host. I might re read PHP patterns and look into this.

    Solar for PHP5 is supposedly built on a MVC architecture.

  16. #66
    eschew sesquipedalians silver trophy sweatje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    3,749
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl
    I did not notice this until today but since I am studying Ruby on Rails but am having a heck of a time finding a dev host. I might re read PHP patterns and look into this.
    Have you seen this? http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/RailsWebHosts
    Jason Sweat ZCE - jsweat_php@yahoo.com
    Book: PHP Patterns
    Good Stuff: SimpleTest PHPUnit FireFox ADOdb YUI
    Detestable (adjective): software that isn't testable.

  17. #67
    SitePoint Addict mx2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i had a pleasant surprise as i moved to the php5 server at my hosting on lunar pages, they have both php5 & ruby & ruby on rails installed along with mysql 4.1

  18. #68
    Web developer Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    sweden
    Posts
    320
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sweatje
    The problem is that they all want two to three times what I am paying now. They are offering less space, no php5 and are skimpy with other items. I have no intention of spending more for a Rails sandbox than I spend for a real site.

  19. #69
    SitePoint Guru silver trophy Luke Redpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    794
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have you checked Textdrive? I don't know what you are paying and what you get right now, but I personally think Textdrive are very cheap, especially considering what you get.

    http://textdrive.com/plans/
    http://textdrive.com/specs/

  20. #70
    eschew sesquipedalians silver trophy sweatje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    3,749
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl
    The problem is that they all want two to three times what I am paying now. They are offering less space, no php5 and are skimpy with other items. I have no intention of spending more for a Rails sandbox than I spend for a real site.
    If you are just looking for a sandbox, why not just use one of the one click installers and work from your PC?

  21. #71
    Web developer Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    sweden
    Posts
    320
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sweatje
    If you are just looking for a sandbox, why not just use one of the one click installers and work from your PC?
    Oh so many times I have done this and been ticked off because of the small unseen differences in web hosting and localhost. Take for instance the drupal/phpbb bridge I am working on. I uploaded it to the webserver for testing an nothing worked. I am now rewriting parts of the script because things like domain names, sessions and cookies are slightly different.

    Right now I pay 10 to 14 dollars a month for "real" hosting after my resold areas pay in and I have 4 smaller accounts spread over 6 different (one company melded to another) hosts which addup up to a about 20 usd a month. I have to do this because of the different php MySQL versions. I have 20 or so small business people who are on a older Colbalt server that has never been upgraded. It runs php4.0.6 and then there are the windows customers on win2000 and 2 that are on java hosting. I have tried to find a host that has everything but then I would be paying 80 usd a month for minor usage of a monster account.

    I have looked at "asmallorange" and others like it. They do what I need for Rails but they use php 4.4 and are not ready go with php5, which I find strange because php5 is as "cutting edge" as RubyonRails. Its weird that they resist php5 but are experimenting with Rails hosting right away.

    And now the show stopper. I also refuse to move anything to a host that does not provide Subversion or CVS by default! without extra cost. This is a must and so far I have only gotten nice emails that say they will turn on CVS on a customer by cutomer basis or they may have this in the future.

    I am going to wait fo RailsApphosting gets going and then start comparing again.

  22. #72
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    608
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl
    I also refuse to move anything to a host that does not provide Subversion or CVS by default! without extra cost. This is a must and so far I have only gotten nice emails that say they will turn on CVS on a customer by cutomer basis
    What's the problem if they'll still do it for you, and for free nonetheless? Or am I mistaken on the latter part?

  23. #73
    SitePoint Addict mx2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ahem* i did state that i moved a php5 server and it had ruby on rails installed, so its possible to find one.

  24. #74
    Web developer Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    sweden
    Posts
    320
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezku
    What's the problem if they'll still do it for you, and for free nonetheless? Or am I mistaken on the latter part?

    Actually it is not as bad as I make it seem. But it is frustrating dealing with hosts and other support people that pigeon whole their answers. Getting Rails, Django or another framework installed becomes easy. But something low maintenance but not a "hot item" on their lists produces question marks. To avoid having to wait for those marks to fade before getting a email, I like to see that the host is aware of their server features and offers them out of hand. When I am doing this stuff for a client then I am patient. But for some reason my patience disappears when it is my own site

  25. #75
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the success of a framework in the PHP/Web world is going to be because of very different reasons than app frameworks such as, say, Cocoa on the Mac. Reason being that most Web sites are document-based and content-driven and employ custom visuals and custom user interaction. Thus, a good Web framework has to adapt to a staggering range of needs and interoperate with an astounding range of separate Web apps, classes, functions, server scripts, databases, OS platforms, Web servers, blah blah etc. etc. So, in my opinion, no one framework in any one language is going to serve the needs of everyone, no matter what.

    There's really nothing wrong with folks "rolling their own". That's what I've done for the most part, and it's worked OK. I think the need for a pre-built framework comes in when the complexity and/or development speed of a project is quite high. Then the time it takes to fiddle around with your own code and add stuff to it doesn't outweigh the time it would take to learn a framework and adapt to it.

    My opinion is this: a good PHP framework is one that allows nearly every aspect of its design to be overridden. This really wasn't possible in some cases until recently with PHP 5 and abstract classes + interfaces. Also, sometimes you just can't subclass a piece of a large system unless other classes that rely on the superclass can be told which new subclass to use. If you have to hand-modify other classes in the system to work with your new subclass, then when you need to upgrade to a new version of the framework it will be a nightmare. Which brings me to another point: design your PHP framework as if it weren't open source. In other words, the developer should be able to alter the functionality of almost every piece of the system without having to resort to modifying the framework code itself. Again, this is a main problem because every third-pary framework/CMS I've used in the PHP world I've been forced to alter to suit my needs. Which means I almost never upgrade the software later because it would take ages to re-patch everything with my code (plus new versions might work differently altogether!).

    This is a fascinating topic, and personally I don't see the framework explosion in the PHP world as a bad thing, especially with PHP 5. People are experimenting and pushing the envelope, and that's good for the platform. Eventually the most popular, supported, and community-driven frameworks will win out, and the critical mass will be there. The other great thing about PHP is that there are so many good libraries out there, including some in PEAR, that building some framework goodies and glue on top of that means that the framework doesn't have to reinvent every darn Web-based wheel on the planet.

    Cheers,

    Jared


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •