Would love to know. I'm traditionally a diy'er, but because this is Zend my logical thinking kicks in and says why would I not use it?
| SitePoint Sponsor |
Would love to know. I'm traditionally a diy'er, but because this is Zend my logical thinking kicks in and says why would I not use it?
a true diy'er wouldn't ask framework questions.
humor aside...
Like all frameworks... you have to try it out for yourself. If it makes sense for what your using.. use it. The problem between all frameworks is you are stuck with the orginal developers intentions. The older the frameworks the more mature and more likely it will meet your needs. As the product develops it may brake old applications with future updates.
You might not want to use it for apps with large numbers of small ajax requests, multiple page forms, or for portals. Not that these can't be done, I just don't perceive these to be the sweet spots for this kind of framework. You may not want to use ZF because of a lack of good example applications, such as symfony's askeet.
There are many positives, but these are the main negatives that I can think of right now.
That depends a bit on what you mean by use. I wouldn't want to buy the whole package; If I wanted a full stack framework, I wouldn't be using PHP in the first place. The strengths of PHP is not uniformity -- it's the opposite.
I use parts of PEAR, and ezComponents now and then, because they allow me to pick out single components and use. I haven't had the need for any of ZFs components yet, but I might if it's possible to pick out a single component, without getting too much dependencies along. But I don't see ZF as being unique in any way, and it provokes me a little bit, when it's presented as such.
> Why would you NOT use the Zend framework?
When it doesn't meet your needs. As for expectations, you'll discover those during the research cycle I would imagine.
The main reason I see is: because it's not mature enough. But as you can see, time will make this reason obsolete.
I am myself using the ZF. Compared to other Frameworks, it still lacks interesting features, but the energy driving the project will for sure make it up for this problem. An "immature" Framework is interesting and challenging though. You can build a more personal relationship with it than with older frameworks I think.
Right. That's the nature of the world of marketing and names and all that. But I think it would be good for PHP if there were a "standard" framework. The more everybody uses the same infrastructure, the easier it is to discuss the higher-level concepts.Originally Posted by kyberfabrikken
Frameworks are odd in that their centerpiece is a front controller, but it's so easy to write a front controller if you know how to do it (and so hard if you don't). So I understand where you're coming from. Being able to use the components without the front controller is the difference between a useless and a useful framework for advanced PHP developers.
Dagfinn Reiersøl
PHP in Action / Blog / Twitter
"Making the impossible possible, the possible easy,
and the easy elegant" -- Moshe Feldenkrais
Because of the underscores in class names.
PHP as template language. Underscores in class names (basicaly disagreeing about coding conventions). Lacks good documentation, immature and migth change a lot.
I haven't looked at ZF apart from a quick peek when i was starting a new project, and it did not convince me in any way. I couldnt see anything attractive about it - apart from coming from zend.
Because Cake, CI, Symfony are better at the moment
Go visit my site :-D you know you want to ;-)
www.mech7.net
Kinda slow. 110ms for a simple 'hello world' with a standard header, content, footer setup
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks