On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 05:17:16PM +0100, 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.
+1 > > 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. +1 This is a deficiency of a lot of frameworks. By the time you display the first byte to the browser, you've loaded 150K of code, only 20K of which do you actually need for *this* page. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php