Re: [PHP] A general discussion of libraries and frameworks

2010-12-10 Thread Adam Richardson
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Bob McConnell  wrote:

> From: Adam Richardson
>
> > As one point of curiosity, I'm wondering when a function or group of
> > functions is, in your eyes, deemed a library.  I tend to use the
> pornography
> > approach to identifying a library ("I know it when I see it"), but I'm
> sure
> > there's a more formal analysis.  For some, maybe it's as simple as
> "The
> > developer calls this a library." :)
>
> As soon as you bundle a set of functions into a separate package that
> can be shared between projects, developers or teams, you have a library.
> I believe this is true even if there is only a single function in the
> bundle. Some libraries are quite extensive, and may even include a
> complete framework. But the distinction is the bundling that makes them
> independent of any specific project.
>
>
Well stated, Bob.

-- 
Nephtali:  PHP web framework that functions beautifully
http://nephtaliproject.com


RE: [PHP] A general discussion of libraries and frameworks

2010-12-10 Thread Bob McConnell
From: Adam Richardson

> As one point of curiosity, I'm wondering when a function or group of
> functions is, in your eyes, deemed a library.  I tend to use the
pornography
> approach to identifying a library ("I know it when I see it"), but I'm
sure
> there's a more formal analysis.  For some, maybe it's as simple as
"The
> developer calls this a library." :)

As soon as you bundle a set of functions into a separate package that
can be shared between projects, developers or teams, you have a library.
I believe this is true even if there is only a single function in the
bundle. Some libraries are quite extensive, and may even include a
complete framework. But the distinction is the bundling that makes them
independent of any specific project.

> I'm also curious if some of the custom "libraries" people have built
fall
> into the category of framework using the definitions above.  C'mon,
you can
> 'fess up, there aren't that many people listening :)

Yes, I would accept that some frameworks are distributed as libraries.
The distinction is where do you start? A library of functions can be
added to your application as you go along. But a framework pretty much
has to be the starting point for a project. When you use Drupal, you
start by setting up a Drupal server. Then you add your own pages or
maybe a custom module. The same goes for most of the other frameworks.
You start with the framework and develop your application within it.

Bob McConnell

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



Re: [PHP] A general discussion of libraries and frameworks

2010-12-10 Thread Richard Quadling
On 10 December 2010 12:07, Tommy Pham  wrote:
> Ironically, both projects are started by the same person.

So that old adage of there being at least 2 PHP frameworks per PHP
developer still holds true!


-- 
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY

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



RE: [PHP] A general discussion of libraries and frameworks

2010-12-10 Thread Tommy Pham
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Richardson [mailto:simples...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:05 AM
> To: PHP-General
> Subject: [PHP] A general discussion of libraries and frameworks
> 
> I see that the ORM thread has generated a broad-ranging discussion.  Some
> of the posts have discussed the utility of frameworks and/or libraries,
and
> because it's Friday, I thought I'd toss out my observations on the subject
and
> see what ideas those on the list had regarding the subject.
> 
> Libraries and frameworks both offer the general hope that their carefully
> crafted and maintained code is better than my one-off stab at the problem
> will be within the timeframe I have to complete the project.  However, I
> tend to make a distinction between frameworks and libraries.  Simply,
> frameworks control the flow of the application, whereas libraries provide
> functionality that fits into your applications flow.
> 
> On the homepage, Doctrine says it's a library, and that seems to fit with
the
> above distinction given my limited knowledge of the code.  JQuery is a
> javascript library, and, although Zend is called a framework, I tend to
use it
> as a library (SMTP email, etc.) to augment my own code, although it can
> certainly be used as a framework.  CakePHP, Ruby on Rails, and Code
Igniter
> are all frameworks because they control the flow of the app.
> 
> Martin Fowler has a nice blog post which speaks more clearly on the
> distinction I tend to draw:
> http://martinfowler.com/bliki/InversionOfControl.html
> 
> As one point of curiosity, I'm wondering when a function or group of
> functions is, in your eyes, deemed a library.  I tend to use the
pornography
> approach to identifying a library ("I know it when I see it"), but I'm
sure
> there's a more formal analysis.  For some, maybe it's as simple as "The
> developer calls this a library." :)
> 
> Moving on, this
> distinction between frameworks and libraries helps inform my choice of
> tools.  If there is a simple task that I'm going to perform and I know
that
> many before me have been faced with the same hurdle, I'll look for a
> function.  However, if there are a set of related tasks I'm going to
perform,
> I'll look for a library.  If none is suitable/findable/trustable, then
I'll see
> what I can muster.
> 
> 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.  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.  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.

Regards,
Tommy

[1] http://www.phpframeworks.com/

> 
>- Input validation on all incoming Get, Post, or Cookie variables, and
>delete any not expected or accounted for.
>- Short-circuiting of the request if the client only wants an html
>fragment (one dynamic region of the page instead of the whole page, as
is
>used to update pages via Ajax.)
>- Automatic output escaping, automatically adjusting for context.
> 
> Now, I could use libraries to get the same effect, certainly.  However, I
> prefer that this flow occur on every dynamic page, and a framework allows
> me to easily achieve and enforce this flow.  Are these the same reasons
> some of you use frameworks?
> 
> I'm also curious if some of the custom "libraries" people have built fall
into
> the category of framework using the definitions above.  C'mon, you can
'fess
> up, there aren't that many people listening :)
> 
> Last, I want to be clear and say that I'm not saying you should always use
a
> framework or library.  Especially with frameworks, you have to be