On 5/10/2010 12:17 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
3} Unless the site is small and has few pages and applications, it is almost
impossible to maintain.
I disagree here. As long as there are useful naming conventions for all
of the files (I've seen projects where files have been named 1.php,
2.php, etc. I wanted to bloody kill the developer who thought that was a
good idea!) It can be easier to maintain, especially when working in
teams, where one person can work on one area of the site and another
person can work on another.
It makes sense sometimes to have different files for different sections
of a website. For example, blog.php, gallery.php, cart.php could deal
with the blog, gallery and shopping cart sections for an artists
website. Yes, it could all be achieved with one script handling
everything, but sometimes when the areas of the site differ greatly, it
results in a lot of extra code to deal with pulling in the right
template and content parts. I've always favoured only including the code
a page needs rather than a huge amount of stuff that it doesn't.
Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
I don't think we disagree. I always give the URL to pages [i.e., files] a
descriptive name e.g.; http://foo.org/Coach/RunningEconSeminar.php
One site I worked on had about 1000 URL pages. Maintaining unique code for most
of these would be prohibitive.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
