On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 05:16 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> Gmagic/Imagick are somewhat incapable of doing graphing at all.
Have you ever really looked ? What about GmagickDraw::point and similar
items ?
> You would likely use a flash or google charts implementation these days
> to generate graphs as there are all sorts of libraries that make this
> dead simple.
No Flash. It is a known security danger and stores, without the user's
knowledge and permission, files on the user's hard disk which are not
removed by normal browser behaviour. If it can be done, I prefer to do
it with PHP. Open Source HTML 5 should replace Flash.
> Framework is the core of any application. It's well known terminology
> for anyone who has done software development...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework
Untrue. The 'framework' seems like a nightmare ....
"... software frameworks consist of frozen spots and hot spots ...
"... Hot spots represent those parts where the programmers using the
framework add their own code to add the functionality specific to their
own project....
"... Software frameworks define the places in the architecture where
application programmers may make adaptations for specific functionality—
the hot spots.
"... Without a framework though, "there is no such thing as a component"
"... consists of abstract and concrete classes ...
"... framework consists of composing and subclassing ...
"... When developing a concrete software system with a software
framework, developers utilize the hot spots according to the specific
needs and requirements of the system.
"... Software frameworks rely on the Hollywood Principle: "Don't call
us, we'll call you."[12] This means that the user-defined classes (for
example, new subclasses), receive messages from the predefined framework
classes. Developers usually handle this by implementing superclass
abstract methods."
NO THANKS. Frameworks is certainly not for me. It seems like a gigantic
and over-complicated time-waster.
> If you don't adopt an existing framework, then you have to create your
> own framework as your application develops sucking an inordinate amount
> of time and given to endless refactoring as your application evolves.
Disagree. 'Keep it Simple' is my preference. Don't complicate things.
Framework crap is probably why so many multi-million pounds or dollars
computer projects fail so abysmally. In Britain the public sector is
littered with them, while computer companies make millions and millions
of pounds profit from failed projects.
> Recognize that by admitting you were unsure of what a framework is w/r/t
> software development provides a clear recognition that you really don't
> have any experience with software development.
I have 44 years computer programming experience. I have seen enormous
amounts of time-wasting, and usually money generating, crap with
wonderful names and impressive waffle, presented by men wearing very
expensive new suits and ultra shinny black shoes. Sometimes they offer
bribes to get the contract. I have developed a basic aversion to
anything which creates an unnecessary complication or overhead.
Perhaps you really lack a clear understanding about the Art of
Programming effectively and efficiently. Frameworks is just another
complicated idea which slows application development and costs
unnecessary sums of money.
I am honest about computers. I have no intention of claiming I know
about 'frameworks' when I do not. Many so-called 'computer experts'
routinely lie and talk in jargon to conceal their limited understanding.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller
> Anyone who has developed software that embraces MVC will never want to
> work on a project that doesn't.
Here we go again .....
"Though MVC comes in different flavors, control flow is generally as
follows:
1. The user interacts with the user interface in some way (for
example, by pressing a mouse button).
2. The controller handles the input event from the user interface,
often via a registered handler or callback, and converts the
event into an appropriate user action, understandable for the
model.
3. The controller notifies the model of the user action, possibly
resulting in a change in the model's state. (For example, the
controller updates the user's shopping cart.)[4]
4. A view queries the model in order to generate an appropriate
user interface (for example the view lists the shopping cart's
contents). The view gets its own data from the model. In some
implementations, the controller may issue a general instruction
to the view to render itself. In others, the view is
automatically notified by the model of changes in state
(Observer) that require a screen update.
5. The user interface waits for further user interactions, which
restarts the control flow cycle."
Among other things, I just write programmes. Why would I want to refer
to the above when designing, writing and testing systems ? Remember
what I wrote about an aversion to complication et cetera and keeping
things simple ? Perhaps the less-well-informed need to be told what is
the objective of writing programmes and how a programme should interface
with users.
> I'm sort of done with this thread. No reason to try to seriously discuss
> something with someone who knows nothing about what they write.
Please do not denigrate yourself. You might eventually learn what
computer programming, systems design and end-user satisfaction is really
about.
--
With best regards,
Paul.
England,
EU.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
