Thanks for the info everyone, this is pretty much what I was expecting to hear about it. I think I'll probably stick to using it as a toolkit. Thanks, Chris. On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Daevid Vincent <daevid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry wrong thread. Damnit. I meant that link for the guy that didn't know > what the -> was for... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daevid Vincent [mailto:daevid@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:01 PM > > To: 'David Harkness' > > Cc: 'PHP-General' > > Subject: RE: Zend framework > > > > http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.basic.php > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David Harkness [mailto:david.h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 10:59 AM > > > To: RQuadling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: chris h; PHP-General > > > Subject: Re: Zend framework > > > > > > We use part of Zend MVC (the dispatcher, controllers, and > > > view scripts) here > > > and a lot of the other facilities such as the autoloader, > > > config, etc. and > > > are very happy so far. As long as you design your application > > > with an eye > > > toward portability, you won't be tied to ZF. For example, put > > > all of your > > > business logic in model classes instead of the controllers > > > themselves. That > > > way if you ever need to move to a new presentation layer or > > > use the business > > > logic outside it (e.g. in SOAP or RPC messages), you'll be ready. > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
