Re: [PHP] Structure of PHP files
Paul M Foster wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:34:37AM -0400, Robert Cummings wrote: Not that I disagree with your methodology at this time, but you could have just made that single big file, include all those little files and still had a single load statement in each of your consumer source files. With compile caches the burden of loading all that code at startup is rather negligible :) I've heard this before, and I don't understand why people say this. If you have a 150k file you load before displaying a page, you've still occupied the CPU with the task of loading a 150k file. What happens to it afterward (compiling, compressing, caching, whatever) is another issue. You've still loaded 150k of code. The question is whether you actually need to load 150k of code from the start. If not, why waste the resources? 150k is peanuts and having it already in memory means it doesn't have to be loaded later. With a compile cache it's quite likely that over time you'll have the 150k loaded into memory anyways. It's just going to take longer for it to be loaded since the compile cache has to "encounter" it first. Once "encountered" it's still occupying the same memory. Additionally, the operating system does an excellent job of swapping memory not being accessed regularly (if it needs memory). Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Structure of PHP files
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:34:37AM -0400, Robert Cummings wrote: > Not that I disagree with your methodology at this time, but you could > have just made that single big file, include all those little files and > still had a single load statement in each of your consumer source files. > With compile caches the burden of loading all that code at startup is > rather negligible :) I've heard this before, and I don't understand why people say this. If you have a 150k file you load before displaying a page, you've still occupied the CPU with the task of loading a 150k file. What happens to it afterward (compiling, compressing, caching, whatever) is another issue. You've still loaded 150k of code. The question is whether you actually need to load 150k of code from the start. If not, why waste the resources? Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Structure of PHP files
'Tis true. I just find dealing with the smaller files much easier. At the time I was using Komodo IDE and it would get very sluggish with the larger files. Take care, Floyd On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Robert Cummings wrote: Floyd Resler wrote: When I first started programming in PHP I used the second method you mentioned. I had a single file I called utils.php and it contained all the functions I could possibly need throughout my site. Unfortunately, this file grew to be over 10,000 lines and most of the time I only needed a couple of functions for each script I loaded. I have now abandoned that method and use a more modular approach. I have a lib folder that contains much smaller and specialized scripts (mainly classes). Now I only include what I need. I found it much easier to maintain than having a single file. Not that I disagree with your methodology at this time, but you could have just made that single big file, include all those little files and still had a single load statement in each of your consumer source files. With compile caches the burden of loading all that code at startup is rather negligible :) Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Structure of PHP files
Floyd Resler wrote: When I first started programming in PHP I used the second method you mentioned. I had a single file I called utils.php and it contained all the functions I could possibly need throughout my site. Unfortunately, this file grew to be over 10,000 lines and most of the time I only needed a couple of functions for each script I loaded. I have now abandoned that method and use a more modular approach. I have a lib folder that contains much smaller and specialized scripts (mainly classes). Now I only include what I need. I found it much easier to maintain than having a single file. Not that I disagree with your methodology at this time, but you could have just made that single big file, include all those little files and still had a single load statement in each of your consumer source files. With compile caches the burden of loading all that code at startup is rather negligible :) Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Structure of PHP files
When I first started programming in PHP I used the second method you mentioned. I had a single file I called utils.php and it contained all the functions I could possibly need throughout my site. Unfortunately, this file grew to be over 10,000 lines and most of the time I only needed a couple of functions for each script I loaded. I have now abandoned that method and use a more modular approach. I have a lib folder that contains much smaller and specialized scripts (mainly classes). Now I only include what I need. I found it much easier to maintain than having a single file. Take care, Floyd On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Sándor Tamás (HostWare Kft.) wrote: Hi, It isn't really a programming question, but rather a structural. Let's suppose I have a PHP page, which is built by other PHP files' includes. Which is the better approach: in a switch-like statement I include the required PHP files, which contain all the functions, and the HTML code to provide the functionality, or create a base PHP file which contains all the funcionality, and the PHP files only contain calls for these functions, and the HTML code? I think the previous method gives more control and it is more repairable, but the later method gives more modularity. With your experiences, what method gives the better overall usability? Thanks, SanTa -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Structure of PHP files
> -Original Message- > From: Dengxule [mailto:dengx...@gmail.com] > Sent: 23 July 2009 10:53 > > > Hoping for the coming of the concept of PACKAGE. Seems that > NAMESPACE will > be introduced in PHP6. Already present in 5.3, actually. Cheers! Mike -- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation, Leeds Metropolitan University, C507, Civic Quarter Campus, Woodhouse Lane, LEEDS, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom Email: m.f...@leedsmet.ac.uk Tel: +44 113 812 4730 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Structure of PHP files
2009/7/23 Sándor Tamás (HostWare Kft.) > Hi, > > It isn't really a programming question, but rather a structural. > > Let's suppose I have a PHP page, which is built by other PHP files' > includes. > > Which is the better approach: > in a switch-like statement I include the required PHP files, which contain > all the functions, and the HTML code to provide the functionality, or > create a base PHP file which contains all the funcionality, and the PHP > files only contain calls for these functions, and the HTML code? > > I think the previous method gives more control and it is more repairable, > but the later method gives more modularity. With your experiences, what > method gives the better overall usability? > > Thanks, > SanTa As far as i experienced, the second method brings problems about the "REQUIRE". If you do put classes and functions directly in that "base PHP file", it will looks fat , and you need a lot of copy/pastes. If you just put a lot of "requires" in that "base PHP file", you may pay attention about the PATH. Usage of "__FILE__" or "__autoload" may bring confusions. Hoping for the coming of the concept of PACKAGE. Seems that NAMESPACE will be introduced in PHP6. Dengxule 09/07/23
[PHP] Structure of PHP files
Hi, It isn't really a programming question, but rather a structural. Let's suppose I have a PHP page, which is built by other PHP files' includes. Which is the better approach: in a switch-like statement I include the required PHP files, which contain all the functions, and the HTML code to provide the functionality, or create a base PHP file which contains all the funcionality, and the PHP files only contain calls for these functions, and the HTML code? I think the previous method gives more control and it is more repairable, but the later method gives more modularity. With your experiences, what method gives the better overall usability? Thanks, SanTa
