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.


> 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.


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 M. Foster

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to