chiphpug-discuss

[chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Hank M. <hma...@gm...>]

So I perused the list archives and saw you guys kicked around what
frameworks were out there back in April or so.   I'm curious if anyone is
actually using one in a project and what you think of it as a production
platform...

Aside from just provolking a little discussion, I'm interested because I've
done a couple Rails projects and think it's pretty darn slick if you need a
framework, though both ruby and python suffer from execution model
difficulties (in my mind) that make implementation and adoption nowhere near
as slick and easy as mod_php ...

Most of my recent vintage PHP stuff is all 2/3rds MVC; an index.php script
that handles all the setup, auth, sessions, and url parsing and then loading
a module and template (controller and view) as dictated by the url parsing;
having inherited codebases with similar structure that seems a fairly common
way to do things ...

So then I go and look at symfony and cackephp ... I see vauge similarities
to rails structurally, but PHPs "Let's bolt on some OO stuff to a procedural
language" design makes them feel icky to me.   And the polish level seems
pretty low to me ... on the flip side I saw somewhere that yahoo is using
cake somewhere, so it might just be me ;)

So what are you folks doing/using?

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Nola S. <mrn...@gm...>]

I also have done some rails and it inspired my "Stupidly Easy MVC
Framework" (links here: http://devasap.net/programming.html) ... and
in recent weeks I have been looking more closely at Zend
Framework.Which in itself, is more like PEAR than Rails, but looks
like it has a nifty MVC Front Controller that works pretty well I
think.

 I've long held the belief that Rails is great because of Ruby and
that Perl (which I also use) and PHP most likely will try to imitate
but never come close. With the improved OOP in PHP5, I am starting to
think that PHP has a chance.


On 11/9/06, Hank Marquardt <hma...@gm...> wrote:
> So I perused the list archives and saw you guys kicked around what
> frameworks were out there back in April or so.   I'm curious if anyone is
> actually using one in a project and what you think of it as a production
> platform...
>
> Aside from just provolking a little discussion, I'm interested because I've
> done a couple Rails projects and think it's pretty darn slick if you need a
> framework, though both ruby and python suffer from execution model
> difficulties (in my mind) that make implementation and adoption nowhere near
> as slick and easy as mod_php ...
>
> Most of my recent vintage PHP stuff is all 2/3rds MVC; an index.php script
> that handles all the setup, auth, sessions, and url parsing and then loading
> a module and template (controller and view) as dictated by the url parsing;
> having inherited codebases with similar structure that seems a fairly common
> way to do things ...
>
> So then I go and look at symfony and cackephp ... I see vauge similarities
> to rails structurally, but PHPs "Let's bolt on some OO stuff to a procedural
> language" design makes them feel icky to me.   And the polish level seems
> pretty low to me ... on the flip side I saw somewhere that yahoo is using
> cake somewhere, so it might just be me ;)
>
> So what are you folks doing/using?
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>
> _______________________________________________
> chiPHPug-discuss mailing list
> chi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chiphpug-discuss
>
>
>


-- 
http://rubygeek.com - my blog featuring: Ruby, PHP and Perl
http://DevChix.com - boys can't have all the fun
http://CodeSnipers.com

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Larry E. M. a. P. <ph...@gm...>]

Been on a list for a while, but not really replied to anything.

I am the developer of CakePHP, lived in the Chicago area most of my life,
but moved recently. Planned on making it to one of the PUG meetings, but did
not happened before I moved. Maybe on a trip back to Illinois I could make
it a point to go to one.

So I perused the list archives and saw you guys kicked around what
> frameworks were out there back in April or so.   I'm curious if anyone is
> actually using one in a project and what you think of it as a production
> platform...


There are many companies using CakePHP in production envirorments.
A good place to search for these would be our Google Group:
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php/about

A few I know of:
http://www.pewterreport.com/
http://villagevoice.com/bestof/2006/

Not sure about this one:
http://www.theonion.com/
But I was told at one time they where switching to CakePHP
<http://www.pewterreport.com/>

A site we recently launched is The Bakery:
http://bakery.cakephp.org

So then I go and look at symfony and cackephp ... I see vauge similarities
> to rails structurally, but PHPs "Let's bolt on some OO stuff to a procedural
> language" design makes them feel icky to me.   And the polish level seems
> pretty low to me ... on the flip side I saw somewhere that yahoo is using
> cake somewhere, so it might just be me ;)


One thing you will find in CakePHP that is found in RoR is conventions over
configuration. There is little if any configuration needed to install cake,
and within a short time create a working application.

So what are you folks doing/using?
>

:) CakePHP

Stop in our irc channel sometime you will find me and about 100 others there
daily, right now I am on a coding "high" going on close to 20 hrs.
#cakephp  irc.freenode.net

Old web interface hosted by a user of CakePHP. Old as in it has not been
updated to the new look of our current sites.

http://irc.cakephp.org/

-- 
/**
* @author Larry E. Masters
* @var string $userName
* @param string $realName
* @returns string aka PhpNut
* @access  public
*/

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Keith C. <mai...@ca...>]

On 11/9/06, Larry E. Masters aka PhpNut <ph...@gm...> wrote:
> Not sure about this one:
> http://www.theonion.com/
> But I was told at one time they where switching to CakePHP

Actually, The Onion, PopSugar, Linux Journal, Lifehacker, and quite a
few others are Drupal... which is quite nifty all the way around.

kc

-- 
D. Keith Casey Jr.
CEO, CaseySoftware, LLC
http://CaseySoftware.com

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Larry G. <lga...@gm...>]

Thank you for volunteering to give a presentation on CakePHP at an upcoming
meeting! :-)  Let us know when.

I'm going to be doing some research into frameworks in the next week or two,
as we need to pick one at work to use for a major project and writing our
own is way way way out of budget. :-)  Cake is one of the ones I want to
look at, but haven't gotten into it yet.  Any information you can provide
about it (esp. what it's specifically good for and specifically NOT good
for) would be helpful.

Cheers.

On 11/9/06, Larry E. Masters aka PhpNut <ph...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Been on a list for a while, but not really replied to anything.
>
> I am the developer of CakePHP, lived in the Chicago area most of my life,
> but moved recently. Planned on making it to one of the PUG meetings, but did
> not happened before I moved. Maybe on a trip back to Illinois I could make
> it a point to go to one.
>
> So I perused the list archives and saw you guys kicked around what
> > frameworks were out there back in April or so.   I'm curious if anyone is
> > actually using one in a project and what you think of it as a production
> > platform...
>
>
> There are many companies using CakePHP in production envirorments.
> A good place to search for these would be our Google Group:
> http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php/about
>
> A few I know of:
> http://www.pewterreport.com/
> http://villagevoice.com/bestof/2006/
>
> Not sure about this one:
> http://www.theonion.com/
> But I was told at one time they where switching to CakePHP
> <http://www.pewterreport.com/>
>
> A site we recently launched is The Bakery:
> http://bakery.cakephp.org
>
> So then I go and look at symfony and cackephp ... I see vauge similarities
> > to rails structurally, but PHPs "Let's bolt on some OO stuff to a procedural
> > language" design makes them feel icky to me.   And the polish level seems
> > pretty low to me ... on the flip side I saw somewhere that yahoo is using
> > cake somewhere, so it might just be me ;)
>
>
> One thing you will find in CakePHP that is found in RoR is conventions
> over configuration. There is little if any configuration needed to install
> cake, and within a short time create a working application.
>
> So what are you folks doing/using?
> >
>
> :) CakePHP
>
> Stop in our irc channel sometime you will find me and about 100 others
> there daily, right now I am on a coding "high" going on close to 20 hrs.
> #cakephp  irc.freenode.net
>
> Old web interface hosted by a user of CakePHP. Old as in it has not been
> updated to the new look of our current sites.
>
> http://irc.cakephp.org/
>
> --
> /**
> * @author Larry E. Masters
> * @var string $userName
> * @param string $realName
> * @returns string aka PhpNut
> * @access  public
> */
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>
> _______________________________________________
> chiPHPug-discuss mailing list
> chi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chiphpug-discuss
>
>
>

--
Larry Garfield

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Hank M. <hma...@gm...>]

Thanks Larry --

Just joined the google group and perhaps I'll pop in IRC one day.   I will
say of all the PHP frameworks I've looked at; though not actually used
beyond play, I probably like Cake and Symfony the best.

Thanks for the list of sites using it, too!

On 11/9/06, Larry E. Masters aka PhpNut <ph...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Been on a list for a while, but not really replied to anything.
>
> I am the developer of CakePHP, lived in the Chicago area most of my life,
> but moved recently. Planned on making it to one of the PUG meetings, but did
> not happened before I moved. Maybe on a trip back to Illinois I could make
> it a point to go to one.
>
> So I perused the list archives and saw you guys kicked around what
> > frameworks were out there back in April or so.   I'm curious if anyone is
> > actually using one in a project and what you think of it as a production
> > platform...
>
>
> There are many companies using CakePHP in production envirorments.
> A good place to search for these would be our Google Group:
> http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php/about
>
> A few I know of:
> http://www.pewterreport.com/
> http://villagevoice.com/bestof/2006/
>
> Not sure about this one:
> http://www.theonion.com/
> But I was told at one time they where switching to CakePHP
> <http://www.pewterreport.com/>
>
> A site we recently launched is The Bakery:
> http://bakery.cakephp.org
>
> So then I go and look at symfony and cackephp ... I see vauge similarities
> > to rails structurally, but PHPs "Let's bolt on some OO stuff to a procedural
> > language" design makes them feel icky to me.   And the polish level seems
> > pretty low to me ... on the flip side I saw somewhere that yahoo is using
> > cake somewhere, so it might just be me ;)
>
>
> One thing you will find in CakePHP that is found in RoR is conventions
> over configuration. There is little if any configuration needed to install
> cake, and within a short time create a working application.
>
> So what are you folks doing/using?
> >
>
> :) CakePHP
>
> Stop in our irc channel sometime you will find me and about 100 others
> there daily, right now I am on a coding "high" going on close to 20 hrs.
> #cakephp  irc.freenode.net
>
> Old web interface hosted by a user of CakePHP. Old as in it has not been
> updated to the new look of our current sites.
>
> http://irc.cakephp.org/
>
> --
> /**
> * @author Larry E. Masters
> * @var string $userName
> * @param string $realName
> * @returns string aka PhpNut
> * @access  public
> */
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>
> _______________________________________________
> chiPHPug-discuss mailing list
> chi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chiphpug-discuss
>
>
>

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Hank M. <hma...@gm...>]

I haven't really looked at Zend's one yet -- just the quick read on it I've
seen is that it's more of a PEAR extension than an actual framework; but
I'll reserve actual judgement till I look/play with it.

Don't think I could go back to doing web work with perl though ... you have
more intestinal fortitude than I there.   I'd have to agree with you that
RoR's success is due in great measure to Ruby as a languauge, but being
comprehensive and having great marketing hasn't hurt them either.

Haven't quite worked up the desire to really learn Python yet, but
eventually I'd like to play with Django and Turbogears in more meaningful
fashion that the quick look I've taken.

PHP though is the web version of COBOL though ... there's millions of lines
of the stuff and someone is going to have to maintain it even if an heir
apparent materializes for new development ... and as I said, the execution
model simply can't be beat for ease of use/maintenance.

On 11/9/06, Nola Stowe <mrn...@gm...> wrote:
>
> I also have done some rails and it inspired my "Stupidly Easy MVC
> Framework" (links here: http://devasap.net/programming.html) ... and
> in recent weeks I have been looking more closely at Zend
> Framework.Which in itself, is more like PEAR than Rails, but looks
> like it has a nifty MVC Front Controller that works pretty well I
> think.
>
> I've long held the belief that Rails is great because of Ruby and
> that Perl (which I also use) and PHP most likely will try to imitate
> but never come close. With the improved OOP in PHP5, I am starting to
> think that PHP has a chance.
>
>
> On 11/9/06, Hank Marquardt <hma...@gm...> wrote:
> > So I perused the list archives and saw you guys kicked around what
> > frameworks were out there back in April or so.   I'm curious if anyone
> is
> > actually using one in a project and what you think of it as a production
> > platform...
> >
> > Aside from just provolking a little discussion, I'm interested because
> I've
> > done a couple Rails projects and think it's pretty darn slick if you
> need a
> > framework, though both ruby and python suffer from execution model
> > difficulties (in my mind) that make implementation and adoption nowhere
> near
> > as slick and easy as mod_php ...
> >
> > Most of my recent vintage PHP stuff is all 2/3rds MVC; an index.phpscript
> > that handles all the setup, auth, sessions, and url parsing and then
> loading
> > a module and template (controller and view) as dictated by the url
> parsing;
> > having inherited codebases with similar structure that seems a fairly
> common
> > way to do things ...
> >
> > So then I go and look at symfony and cackephp ... I see vauge
> similarities
> > to rails structurally, but PHPs "Let's bolt on some OO stuff to a
> procedural
> > language" design makes them feel icky to me.   And the polish level
> seems
> > pretty low to me ... on the flip side I saw somewhere that yahoo is
> using
> > cake somewhere, so it might just be me ;)
> >
> > So what are you folks doing/using?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,
> security?
> > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> > easier
> > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
> Geronimo
> > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > chiPHPug-discuss mailing list
> > chi...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chiphpug-discuss
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://rubygeek.com - my blog featuring: Ruby, PHP and Perl
> http://DevChix.com - boys can't have all the fun
> http://CodeSnipers.com
>

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Nola S. <mrn...@gm...>]

I never said I used Perl for the web or liked it for that:) I don't
like it was a web language... and I put my best effort into it. I
prefer it as a processing language... for example, a few months ago I
had a CSV file that I needed to get into a php array.. I used perl to
munge up the data and used a PHP Serialize perl class to give me a php
array :) it was a one time script. .

I was bored with PHP last fall and learned Ruby and Perl. I got Perl
job, converted them to Ruby.... left after 3 months  because they had
problems meeting payroll... and now I'm back to doing PHP. I am pretty
much a language geek and dabble in python a bit and have aspirations
to learn smalltalk and haskell at some point.


On 11/9/06, Hank Marquardt <hma...@gm...> wrote:
> I haven't really looked at Zend's one yet -- just the quick read on it I've
> seen is that it's more of a PEAR extension than an actual framework; but
> I'll reserve actual judgement till I look/play with it.
>
> Don't think I could go back to doing web work with perl though ... you have
> more intestinal fortitude than I there.   I'd have to agree with you that
> RoR's success is due in great measure to Ruby as a languauge, but being
> comprehensive and having great marketing hasn't hurt them either.
>
> Haven't quite worked up the desire to really learn Python yet, but
> eventually I'd like to play with Django and Turbogears in more meaningful
> fashion that the quick look I've taken.
>
> PHP though is the web version of COBOL though ... there's millions of lines
> of the stuff and someone is going to have to maintain it even if an heir
> apparent materializes for new development ... and as I said, the execution
> model simply can't be beat for ease of use/maintenance.
>
>
> On 11/9/06, Nola Stowe <mrn...@gm...> wrote:
> > I also have done some rails and it inspired my "Stupidly Easy MVC
> > Framework" (links here:
> http://devasap.net/programming.html) ... and
> > in recent weeks I have been looking more closely at Zend
> > Framework.Which in itself, is more like PEAR than Rails, but looks
> > like it has a nifty MVC Front Controller that works pretty well I
> > think.
> >
> > I've long held the belief that Rails is great because of Ruby and
> > that Perl (which I also use) and PHP most likely will try to imitate
> > but never come close. With the improved OOP in PHP5, I am starting to
> > think that PHP has a chance.
> >
> >
> > On 11/9/06, Hank Marquardt < hma...@gm...> wrote:
> > > So I perused the list archives and saw you guys kicked around what
> > > frameworks were out there back in April or so.   I'm curious if anyone
> is
> > > actually using one in a project and what you think of it as a production
> > > platform...
> > >
> > > Aside from just provolking a little discussion, I'm interested because
> I've
> > > done a couple Rails projects and think it's pretty darn slick if you
> need a
> > > framework, though both ruby and python suffer from execution model
> > > difficulties (in my mind) that make implementation and adoption nowhere
> near
> > > as slick and easy as mod_php ...
> > >
> > > Most of my recent vintage PHP stuff is all 2/3rds MVC; an index.php
> script
> > > that handles all the setup, auth, sessions, and url parsing and then
> loading
> > > a module and template (controller and view) as dictated by the url
> parsing;
> > > having inherited codebases with similar structure that seems a fairly
> common
> > > way to do things ...
> > >
> > > So then I go and look at symfony and cackephp ... I see vauge
> similarities
> > > to rails structurally, but PHPs "Let's bolt on some OO stuff to a
> procedural
> > > language" design makes them feel icky to me.   And the polish level
> seems
> > > pretty low to me ... on the flip side I saw somewhere that yahoo is
> using
> > > cake somewhere, so it might just be me ;)
> > >
> > > So what are you folks doing/using?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,
> security?
> > > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> > > easier
> > > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
> Geronimo
> > >
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > chiPHPug-discuss mailing list
> > > chi...@li...
> > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chiphpug-discuss
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://rubygeek.com - my blog featuring: Ruby, PHP and Perl
> > http://DevChix.com - boys can't have all the fun
> > http://CodeSnipers.com
> >
>
>


-- 
http://rubygeek.com - my blog featuring: Ruby, PHP and Perl
http://DevChix.com - boys can't have all the fun
http://CodeSnipers.com

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Larry E. M. a. P. <ph...@gm...>]

Hank,

Forgot to add Jonathan Snook (http://snook.ca/jonathan/).
He recently "converted" to CakePHP and redesigned his site using it.

He wrote a entry titled "Why Frameworks Suck"
http://www.snook.ca/archives/building_a_web_application/why_frameworks/

Folowup to that a few months later...
http://www.snook.ca/archives/building_a_web_application/why_frameworks_1/

Changed his mind after a while...
http://snook.ca/archives/cakephp/cakephp_initial/

http://snook.ca/archives/cakephp/

-- 
/**
* @author Larry E. Masters
* @var string $userName
* @param string $realName
* @returns string aka PhpNut
* @access  public
*/

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Hank M. <hma...@gm...>]

Hmm.  His posts aren't particularly insightful, but the comment threads are
interesting;)

Interesting to see his thinking evolve from "Frameworks are evil" to "Look
at me using CakePHP!" ... I actually respect the ability to change ones
opinion through education, but it is funny on the surface.

Reading all the comments though makes me want to go look at Django even
though I'm not a pythonista ...

On 11/10/06, Larry E. Masters aka PhpNut <ph...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Hank,
>
> Forgot to add Jonathan Snook (http://snook.ca/jonathan/).
> He recently "converted" to CakePHP and redesigned his site using it.
>
> He wrote a entry titled "Why Frameworks Suck"
> http://www.snook.ca/archives/building_a_web_application/why_frameworks/
>
> Folowup to that a few months later...
> http://www.snook.ca/archives/building_a_web_application/why_frameworks_1/
>
> Changed his mind after a while...
> http://snook.ca/archives/cakephp/cakephp_initial/
>
> http://snook.ca/archives/cakephp/
>
> --
> /**
> * @author Larry E. Masters
> * @var string $userName
> * @param string $realName
> * @returns string aka PhpNut
> * @access  public
> */
>

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Richard L. <ce...@l-...>]

On Thu, November 9, 2006 8:26 am, Nola Stowe wrote:
> I also have done some rails and it inspired my "Stupidly Easy MVC
> Framework" (links here: http://devasap.net/programming.html) ... and
> in recent weeks I have been looking more closely at Zend
> Framework.Which in itself, is more like PEAR than Rails, but looks
> like it has a nifty MVC Front Controller that works pretty well I
> think.

I tried to do an MVC thingie (not knowing it was called MVC) back in
PHP3 days...

And it just ended up having so much cruft in the Controller file, that
I abandoned it and never went back.

I don't really feel the need for a single Controller when I can
centrally locate the authentication in one include file, the db
connection in another, and pull those both in (or not, sometimes, when
appropriate) through a 'globals.inc' file that handles the masthead
and footer and site-wide layout / navigation.

Or maybe that *is* my Controller, just done with PHP includes. LOL.

One issue is that it's a lot easier to tell somebody to go to the
"foo.htm" page (which is PHP, of course) than to go to
"index.php?page=foo"

Now, of course, you can do all kinds of URL-rewriting tricks in PHP or
(shudder) mod_rewrite in Apache, but I find it easier to just have a
foo.htm page with:

<?php
  require 'globals.inc';
  head("Page Title"); //masthead, navigation, basic layout "shell"

  //page-specific business logic
?>
Page specific content and presentation logic
<?php
  foot(); //closing tags for head()
?>

The one-page logic rarely exceeds a screenful, and the HTML layout
might be 2 screens with all the tags and all that, but that's hardly
difficult

The nice thing about PHP/Ruby/Python and all that is you have a lot of
options, and can use whatever you like best.

The head() and foot() functions are before/after each other in the
globals.inc file, so the "shell" of the layout reads just like an HTML
page.

The head() function might also take an extra arg for business-logic
specific purposes, such as a flag to suppress the "usual" layout for
the homepage or perhaps a custom stylesheet to insert into the HEAD
tags for just this one page.

The head() function may also key off of $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] which has
foo.htm to put in a link to 'foo.css' if it exists, or perhaps a
foo.png image in the masthead to help them know where they are or
something like that.

-- 
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy a CD from some starving artist.
http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch
Yeah, I get a buck. So?

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Hank M. <hma...@gm...>]

I agree having index.php?page=foo is ugly ... but I think mod_rewrite (and
it's ilk) have taken over the world at this point with respect to clean url
implementation and once you understand the magic incantations it's not
really so bad.   It also seems most of the current frameworks (regardless of
language) use it for dispatching from a central script; ie index.php.

I do agree with Rich though that on small sites particularly, the whole code
/ view separation thing is way overblown ... unless code at the top of the
page, format at the bottom counts as separation ;) ... I know and respect
that that's heresy in most web dev shops, but for little projects it's
actually nice that php allows it so cleanly.

On 11/14/06, Richard Lynch <ce...@l-...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, November 9, 2006 8:26 am, Nola Stowe wrote:
> > I also have done some rails and it inspired my "Stupidly Easy MVC
> > Framework" (links here: http://devasap.net/programming.html) ... and
> > in recent weeks I have been looking more closely at Zend
> > Framework.Which in itself, is more like PEAR than Rails, but looks
> > like it has a nifty MVC Front Controller that works pretty well I
> > think.
>
> I tried to do an MVC thingie (not knowing it was called MVC) back in
> PHP3 days...
>
> And it just ended up having so much cruft in the Controller file, that
> I abandoned it and never went back.
>
> I don't really feel the need for a single Controller when I can
> centrally locate the authentication in one include file, the db
> connection in another, and pull those both in (or not, sometimes, when
> appropriate) through a 'globals.inc' file that handles the masthead
> and footer and site-wide layout / navigation.
>
> Or maybe that *is* my Controller, just done with PHP includes. LOL.
>
> One issue is that it's a lot easier to tell somebody to go to the
> "foo.htm" page (which is PHP, of course) than to go to
> "index.php?page=foo"
>
> Now, of course, you can do all kinds of URL-rewriting tricks in PHP or
> (shudder) mod_rewrite in Apache, but I find it easier to just have a
> foo.htm page with:
>
> <?php
>   require 'globals.inc';
>   head("Page Title"); //masthead, navigation, basic layout "shell"
>
>   //page-specific business logic
> ?>
> Page specific content and presentation logic
> <?php
>   foot(); //closing tags for head()
> ?>
>
> The one-page logic rarely exceeds a screenful, and the HTML layout
> might be 2 screens with all the tags and all that, but that's hardly
> difficult
>
> The nice thing about PHP/Ruby/Python and all that is you have a lot of
> options, and can use whatever you like best.
>
> The head() and foot() functions are before/after each other in the
> globals.inc file, so the "shell" of the layout reads just like an HTML
> page.
>
> The head() function might also take an extra arg for business-logic
> specific purposes, such as a flag to suppress the "usual" layout for
> the homepage or perhaps a custom stylesheet to insert into the HEAD
> tags for just this one page.
>
> The head() function may also key off of $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] which has
> foo.htm to put in a link to 'foo.css' if it exists, or perhaps a
> foo.png image in the masthead to help them know where they are or
> something like that.
>
> --
> Some people have a "gift" link here.
> Know what I want?
> I want you to buy a CD from some starving artist.
> http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch
> Yeah, I get a buck. So?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SF.net email is sponsored by: A Better Job is Waiting for You - Find it
> Now.
> Check out Slashdot's new job board. Browse through tons of technical jobs
> posted by companies looking to hire people just like you.
> http://jobs.slashdot.org/
> _______________________________________________
> chiPHPug-discuss mailing list
> chi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chiphpug-discuss
>

Re: [chiPHPug-discuss] Anyone actually *using* a framework?

[Keith C. <mai...@ca...>]

On 11/14/06, Hank Marquardt <hma...@gm...> wrote:
> I do agree with Rich though that on small sites particularly, the whole code
> / view separation thing is way overblown ... unless code at the top of the
> page, format at the bottom counts as separation ;) ... I know and respect
> that that's heresy in most web dev shops, but for little projects it's
> actually nice that php allows it so cleanly.

Almost every "framework" comes out of an existing application that
works as opposed to being build from the ground up.  Therefore,
although the system starts with the two completely blended, the
separation of ui/code happens as time goes on and requirements change.

Personally, I see it as a goal, not a starting point in most applications.

kc

-- 
D. Keith Casey Jr.
CEO, CaseySoftware, LLC
http://CaseySoftware.com