Comments on: More Framework Fun http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Facebook should've be written in unicornSchemaLang, because everyone *knows* that PHP is no good for anything, right? Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:58:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Chris Hartjes http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-10404 Chris Hartjes Tue, 13 May 2008 23:07:21 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-10404 @kenrick Lack of ORM is a disadvantage only when trying to rapidly build something. I'm not a believer in that idea of the_one_true_pattern, just that the right tool sometimes is ORM so you can JFGID (just fucking get it done). I have to use SQL every day, so I certainly don't shy away from it. But many times it is faster to use the built-in ORM / ActiveRecord / Associative Data Mapper that frameworks often provide. @kenrick

Lack of ORM is a disadvantage only when trying to rapidly build something. I’m not a believer in that idea of the_one_true_pattern, just that the right tool sometimes is ORM so you can JFGID (just fucking get it done).

I have to use SQL every day, so I certainly don’t shy away from it. But many times it is faster to use the built-in ORM / ActiveRecord / Associative Data Mapper that frameworks often provide.

]]> By: kenrick http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-10403 kenrick Tue, 13 May 2008 22:59:17 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-10403 I don't think the lack of an ORM is a disadvantage. I think it has been bad for the community to assume that MVC or Active Record etc solves their problems. I think while MVC as a pattern has merit, Active Record on the other hand can create problems not anticipated by most developers. Active Record is ONE database pattern, not _the_one_true_ pattern. Why are people so afraid of SQL? I find that most ORMs just get in the way, and tend to be many more lines of code then just writing a simple SQL statement. I guarantee you too that my SQL will be faster then your ORM every time. So I see why Zend might not include an ORM. Maybe that is a problem they don't think is worth solving, as pointed out above there are other people who have done it, and some that have done it very successfully. ADODB is about as far as I go with abstraction. Too much magic makes it hard to figure out what the application is doing. Bottom line: don't be afraid of SQL. I don’t think the lack of an ORM is a disadvantage. I think it has been bad for the community to assume that MVC or Active Record etc solves their problems. I think while MVC as a pattern has merit, Active Record on the other hand can create problems not anticipated by most developers. Active Record is ONE database pattern, not _the_one_true_ pattern.

Why are people so afraid of SQL? I find that most ORMs just get in the way, and tend to be many more lines of code then just writing a simple SQL statement. I guarantee you too that my SQL will be faster then your ORM every time.

So I see why Zend might not include an ORM. Maybe that is a problem they don’t think is worth solving, as pointed out above there are other people who have done it, and some that have done it very successfully.

ADODB is about as far as I go with abstraction. Too much magic makes it hard to figure out what the application is doing.

Bottom line: don’t be afraid of SQL.

]]> By: Dave Edelhart http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-8700 Dave Edelhart Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:44:41 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-8700 I suspect that the Zend framework is light on the ORM layer because they did not want to duplicate the work of groups like Prople and Doctrine, both of which are strong ORMs in their own right and integrate well into the Zend framework. But I would point out that ORMS themselves are often somewhat limited and heavy handed; in working with Doctrine, I am constantly running into things you just can't do with it -- such as creating non-table fields using functions -- and having to wrestle with memory and speed issues you just do not encounter with raw SQL. I unerstand and appreciate the activeRecord paradigm but I'd warn people looking into it that as with all constructs, ActiveRecord solves a lot of problems well, but it does leave some of the power of free-flowing SQL behind in the process. I suspect that the Zend framework is light on the ORM layer because they did not want to duplicate the work of groups like Prople and Doctrine, both of which are strong ORMs in their own right and integrate well into the Zend framework. But I would point out that ORMS themselves are often somewhat limited and heavy handed; in working with Doctrine, I am constantly running into things you just can’t do with it — such as creating non-table fields using functions — and having to wrestle with memory and speed issues you just do not encounter with raw SQL.

I unerstand and appreciate the activeRecord paradigm but I’d warn people looking into it that as with all constructs, ActiveRecord solves a lot of problems well, but it does leave some of the power of free-flowing SQL behind in the process.

]]> By: Emil Ivanov http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-7392 Emil Ivanov Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:44:05 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-7392 Zand Framework has an implementation of Row/Table Data Gateway pattern, which works very well when used right, it's quite faster than ActiveRecord, basically by making you write complicated queries in SQL, rather than PHP. If you really need a proper ActiveRecord - just drop Doctrine in the library folder and you have it! ZF is a very smart product, but well have to be patient until it gets more robust (the view is quite limited right now). Regards Zand Framework has an implementation of Row/Table Data Gateway pattern, which works very well when used right, it’s quite faster than ActiveRecord, basically by making you write complicated queries in SQL, rather than PHP. If you really need a proper ActiveRecord – just drop Doctrine in the library folder and you have it!
ZF is a very smart product, but well have to be patient until it gets more robust (the view is quite limited right now).
Regards

]]> By: Chris Hartjes http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-7366 Chris Hartjes Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:13:33 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-7366 @Philip The ability to integrate CakePHP with a legacy app is in direct proportion to how much control over the whole request cycle your legacy app has. It's quite easy to use 3rd party libraries with Cake by dropping them into the vendor's directory. I do know that there is an internal project at work that calls some Cake stuff via a cron job. I will investigate that and see what the heck is going on there. @Philip
The ability to integrate CakePHP with a legacy app is in direct proportion to how much control over the whole request cycle your legacy app has. It’s quite easy to use 3rd party libraries with Cake by dropping them into the vendor’s directory.

I do know that there is an internal project at work that calls some Cake stuff via a cron job. I will investigate that and see what the heck is going on there.

]]> By: Philip http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-7347 Philip Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:23:51 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-7347 I really value your conversation with Nate. I'm in the process of evaluating frameworks to try to move a small team toward framework-based PHP development, and your explanations are very helpful. We're leaning heavily toward Cake, but I want to give a couple of others a fair chance too. The issue of integrating new MVC development with legacy code and a third-party CMS is important to us, so I value your thoughts on using Cake outside of the MVC context. I really value your conversation with Nate. I’m in the process of evaluating frameworks to try to move a small team toward framework-based PHP development, and your explanations are very helpful. We’re leaning heavily toward Cake, but I want to give a couple of others a fair chance too. The issue of integrating new MVC development with legacy code and a third-party CMS is important to us, so I value your thoughts on using Cake outside of the MVC context.

]]> By: Nick Halstead http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-6186 Nick Halstead Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:23:50 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-6186 I think you have missed the point of the framework. Why are you linking the requirement of a mature MVC to a framework. Although I agree that the Zend Framework is not anywhere near as complete as Cake's I do not think you can make a comparison based upon this. For advanced projects you generally extend any MVC framework and Zend has allowed for extensive customisation via routes. It does have issues regarding common components which the helper functions try to solve but currently do not. The strength within the Zend framework is its breadth of coverage, I have found Zend_ACL & Zend_Cache both extremely powerful when extended. I have a short <a href="http://blog.assembleron.com/2007/04/18/why-you-need-a-zend-framework-acl-and-cache-gui/" rel="nofollow">post</a> that covers making a GUI for some of the Zend Framework components. I think you have missed the point of the framework. Why are you linking the requirement of a mature MVC to a framework. Although I agree that the Zend Framework is not anywhere near as complete as Cake’s I do not think you can make a comparison based upon this.

For advanced projects you generally extend any MVC framework and Zend has allowed for extensive customisation via routes. It does have issues regarding common components which the helper functions try to solve but currently do not.

The strength within the Zend framework is its breadth of coverage, I have found Zend_ACL & Zend_Cache both extremely powerful when extended. I have a short post that covers making a GUI for some of the Zend Framework components.

]]> By: Nate http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-5903 Nate Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:20:37 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-5903 Ah, Chris, I always enjoy our conversations. :-) Sorry if I sounded defensive, I didn't mean to at all. Actually, you're one of the few people who I'm able to respect regardless of the level of divergence of our opinions. ;-) heheh Anyway, the response I was going to write turned into it's own post behind my back, and without asking me, so go read it and let me know what you think. http://cake.insertdesignhere.com/posts/view/18 Ah, Chris, I always enjoy our conversations. :-) Sorry if I sounded defensive, I didn’t mean to at all. Actually, you’re one of the few people who I’m able to respect regardless of the level of divergence of our opinions. ;-) heheh

Anyway, the response I was going to write turned into it’s own post behind my back, and without asking me, so go read it and let me know what you think.

http://cake.insertdesignhere.com/posts/view/18

]]> By: CakeBits » CakePHP vs Zend Framework? http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-5838 CakeBits » CakePHP vs Zend Framework? Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:36:14 +0000 http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/03/28/more-framework-fun/#comment-5838 [...] Read more @TheKeyboard :: More Framework Fun [...] [...] Read more @TheKeyboard :: More Framework Fun [...]

]]>