I'm sure using Doctrine natively or Propel natively has many  
advantages in terms of performance optimizations etc over DbFinder.

BUT, it means maintaining 2 sets of code for the same plugin. A plugin  
using DbFinder possibly wouldn't perform as well, but it would be only  
1 set of code to maintain - 1 plugin to rule them all ;)

Realistically, what kind of performance penalty are we expecting? and  
does this outweigh the cost of maintaining 2 sets of code? hardware  
and cpu cycles are cheap - developers time isn't ;)

I think, from a pragmatic point of view, it makes more sense to stick  
with 1 codebase and better utilise the time making the plugin itself  
better (or even to port other plugins in the same way).

Regardless of that, the starting point for either a Doctrine OR a  
DbFinder sfSimpleForum plugin is to make a Doctrine schema (the Propel  
one already exists) I'm going to start that tomorrow.

Mail me off list and we can discuss more :)

Lee

On 18 Oct 2008, at 14:15, kiszl wrote:

>
> I would like to collaborate. I'm also an only spare-time hobby
> developer, so don't expect a huge boost on the project :)
>
> I had a look at this DbFinder, and I'm not sure I see the point. I
> mean I see the idea behind, but also see the disadvantages in using
> it.
> For example it does not support hydration of query results directly
> into arrays; one of Doctrine the features I like the most (and so does
> php's memory_limit).
>
> So at the moment I'd prefer a separate sfDoctrineForumPlugin. The work
> involved shouldn't be more than with sticking to DbFinder.
> That doesn't mean you cannot convince me towards DbFinder though.
>
> Z.
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"symfony users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to