Would you agree this is the definition of a PHP framework?

[TomB]

@tony_marston404

They use the two terms in the same article without saying that the two terms are different, which confirms that they have the same meaning. That is not a big leap, it is a reasonable interpretation.

Sorry, what? So any article that uses two different terms without explicitly stating they are different means they are the same?

Gravity

So by this definition:

Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon b

Gravity is a natural phenomenon and all natural phenomenons are gravity. It doesn’t state anywhere that they’re not the same!! Do you even think before you type? You’re so far down this avenue of insanity you’ve lost all perspective.

@tony_marston404

As for your Java examples, they are irrelevant as this is a PHP group, and everybody knows that PHP and Java are different languages which work differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

You seem again to be making a distinction which isn’t there. They are two programming languages. We’re discussing OOP principles and the principles apply to OOP, not to a specific language. Try again. In PHP we build the GUI using template engines and form classes. I can use DomDocument, DomElement and other related classes to build the HTML. This would still follow SoC. However, if I merged the code for the template engines, form classes and DOM manipulation it would violate SRP.

@tony_marston404

When the processing of business rules for a database table needs to change. Is that simple enough?

It’s incredibly vague. By this definition I could removed all the methods from the class and still use this definition or I could apply it to this class:

class BusinessRules {
 public $exists = false;
}

Also it admits to breaking SRP:

If any of the business rules change, the class needs to change. How many business rules are there? Well it doesn’t matter because you specifically said rules. If we were following SRP, each rule would have its own class.