Re: Modular: Fusebox & Classes/OOP

Thanks for replying - I was beginning to think my posts don't even make it to the list! :) We've done a couple small tests with it - so far so good. We've got two larger projects developing in it right now. One a conversion from an earlier architecture (PHP still, which was upgraded from ASP). PHP made our lives easier than ASP, but the headaches of dealing with a 40+ page application are showing already when every page does it's own db setup, tear down, session handling, etc. I don't think we're doing a 'pure' OOP approach. PHP doesn't allow for 'pure OOP' whatever that may be. I'm not that big into OOP stuff, but I've heard enough people bitching about OOP support in PHP to know it's not 'pure'. :) One of the other guys here suggested to tell people this is along the lines of a 'servlet' model, if that helps at all. In terms of development, we're adapting to this new way, and it's helping a lot. People can write their service code, and a template, but don't have to worry at all about the templating system, session handling, db connections, logging, etc. I'm repeating myself from the other message, and don't mean to. But it's cool. How much different is it from Leon's method? I can't say, as I've not installed FreeEnergy - did take a look at some of the code though. Rather than building the template system together with this framework, as it appears Leon did, we're leaving the templating method up to you. We obviously like ours, but if you wanted to use something else, go ahead. In the midst of writing this we just had a long discussion here about some things. There are some features of FreeEnergy that I like - for example, the separation of the META tags, TITLE, etc., from the template. But I realized that's more a template issue, not something endemic to the core framework itself (that is, it doesn't *need* to be anyway). I will say that reviewing the FreeEnergy system, it does seem a bit overly complex. Granted, others would say the same about our system, no doubt. This isn't meant to be an argument, but I have some trouble getting my teeth into that code, whereas stuff *I* wrote I can get into just fine. :) I think I'm starting to ramble a bit.... We're looking at possibly releasing more info on this in the near future - we're having to extract and rewrite some of this out of a 'work for hire' and therefore can't just release all the code to date. Plus, it needs a bit of cleaning up. :) On the maintainability issue, tho, it's great, as when there's a problem, I load up *just* the service with the problem. That logic may only be 50-80 lines, and it's much easier to be reading that than scrolling through an extra 100+ lines of 'setup' script, even if you know where things are right away. Geoff Caplan wrote: > Michael Kinsal wrote: > > > This is somewhat similar to the FreeEnergy idea proposed by Leon Atkinson > > on the zend.com tutorial area someplace. > > > > We employ a similar method, but it's just a bit different. > > > > This is interesting. We are currently looking at using a FreeEnergy inspired > architecture for our own retail site. > > Michael, could you explain a bit more about your decision to take a pure OOP > approach as against Leon Atkinson's procedural system? Given the limitations > of OOP in PHP we would be looking for some pretty concrete practical > benefits if we were going to go OOP throughout. How has it worked out for > you, in terms of development time, maintainability and operational > efficiency. Also, any more hints about how you have structured this would be > appreciated > > Thanks > > Geoff Caplan > British Goldsmiths ========================== Michael Kimsal PHP training courses http://www.tapinternet.com/php PHP neta search http://www.phphelpdesk.com/search/