I think I didn't hit reply-all. PICNIC moment :D > -----Original Message----- > From: Tommy Pham [mailto:tommyhp2@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:01 AM > To: Adam Richardson > Subject: Re: A general discussion of libraries and frameworks > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Adam Richardson <simpleshot@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Tommy Pham <tommyhp2@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Adam Richardson [mailto:simpleshot@xxxxxxxxx] > >> > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:05 AM > > > > ... > >> > >> > I use frameworks when there is a particular flow I wish to enforce > >> > throughout the application. For instance, my web framework > >> > enforces a general flow during all requests: > >> > >> Adam, > >> > >> I find that 'enforce' leads to inflexibility eventually. > > > > You're absolutely right, choosing to use a framework does mean that > > you give up some flexibility. The degree of flexibility you loose > > seems to depend on how many areas of flow the framework tries to > determine. > > > >> > >> As for framework, > >> I'm still looking for a good implementation of the presented concept > >> (MVC, ORM, etc.). Case in point: MVC. You could just add or do some > >> minor change in either/all the Model, View, or Controller, having > >> that flexibility to adapt w/o major base code change is very nice. > >> The problem lies therein of implementing the abstract concept MVC > >> into concrete, workable (learning, understanding, maintaining, etc.), > >> reliable, and flexible (modular, 3rd party add-ins, etc.) code while > >> retaining good performance. IE: Zend Framework. The code base is > >> somewhat bloated, IMO. But as others have mentioned, it's still > >> useful due to its modular design as you can choose to use parts of it > >> within your app and not need to implement the entire framework. I > >> don't have enough experience with ZF yet to see how expandability it > >> is in terms of third party add-in/plugin/module. Here's the list of > >> PHP frameworks [1]. I don't know how current it is. As you can see > >> from that table, only 2 supports everything that's current under the > >> sun, including template & event driven. > > > > Nice points. > > In terms of supporting everything, I rarely look to see how many > > things a framework supports, I look at how well the framework supports > > the flow-related aspects of my application I really need. I can > > always use a library to fill in the holes if the framework's core > > merits (usability, extensibility, etc.) > > The main reason why I look at the features of the framework simply that > should my project is based upon it, even though I don't use all of the > features, someone later may develop a plug-in to further enhance the > quality of the project and like to use a feature from that same framework, > that I didn't use. > > >> > >> Yii isn't very mature from what I've > >> read so far. PRADO's, although acronym is both catchy and > >> meaningful, code base is too much ASP.NET like even though it's based > >> on PHP >.>. > >> Ironically, both projects are started by the same person. > > > > Both are nice frameworks, with Yii being an exceptional point of interest. > > Given your priorities, I'm curious if you've tried frameworks like > > Code Igniter or the Fat Free Framework. Both are small enough that > > they feel quite flexible. > > No, I haven't looked at those as I'm looking for something that will give me > the following, or have the ability to accept the following plug-ins, for my > project based on a concept I have: > > * MVC - excellent to model after the business > * Multiple DB's - so my project can be used anywhere > * ORM (optional and if it meets the points mentioned above) > * DB Objects - allows flexibility within the app and the DB backend > * Templates - for more flexible UI > * Caching - the very last thing I'll implement upon/after project maturity. (I > understand all of the benefits and shortcomings. Most of its usage I've seen > so far is solve a problem that should never happen in the first place.) > * Validation - what app would be w/o validation these days > * Ajax - rich UI and performance > * ACL - I'm not sure that Auth modules mentioned in the table would fully > provide ACL > * Event Driven - that saids it all. > * SOAP > > Since some of the frameworks doesn't have most of the above features, I > didn't look at those. I'll put some time to look into CodeIgniter, Cake, and > yours later. > > > Also, there are frameworks that don't force an MVC-styled routing > > mechanism on you. My web framework allows you to map dynamic > > functionality onto existing website (legacy PHP code and all), whilst > > providing the flow for any new added functionality. > > Nice commentary, Tommy. > > Adam > > > > -- > > Nephtali: PHP web framework that functions beautifully > > http://nephtaliproject.com > > > > Thanks. I need MVC simply for the fact that it will reduce my project's code > base size. As for MVC styled framework, I think PureMVC is good so far > although it lacks many of the features I'm looking for. It was created > originally for Flash based but since been ported over to C#, ColdFusion, > Haxe, Java, JavaScript, Objective C, PHP, Python, and Ruby. It's API based > and natively supports modules while allowing both sync and async > execution. > > Regards, > Tommy -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
