[PHP] Swiftlet is quite possibly the smallest MVC framework you'll ever use.
I'm looking for constructive feedback on Swiftlet, a tiny MVC framework that leverages the OO capabilities of PHP 5.3. It's intentionally featureless and should familiar to those experienced with MVC. Any comments on architecture, code and documentation quality are very welcome. Source code and documentation: http://swiftlet.org
Re: [PHP] Swiftlet is quite possibly the smallest MVC framework you'll ever use.
Hi Simon, I think you're right that I may be abusing the constructor a bit. I'm going to follow your suggestion and split it up into smaller functions. I'm also thinking of moving the set_error_handler and spl_autoload_register functions to index.php where Swiftlet is bootstrapped so they can be changed. You make another good point about the model; it's never supposed to access the controller or view. I updated the code to reflect this. It should work like your second flowchart<http://betterexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/rails/mvc-rails.png>(perhaps with the added concept of plugins, which can hook into anything). Symfony's routing is nice, many smaller frameworks take a similar approach (e.g. Sinatra <http://www.sinatrarb.com/> and ToroPHP <http://toroweb.org/>). However, I like the fact that Swiftlet requires no configuration. Just drop in your class and it works. The file structure and classes already do a good job describing themselves. Excellent feedback, thanks! Elbert On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Schick wrote: > Hi, Elbert > > I've looked through the code and found it quite tiny I like that. > > Until now I found some things that I'd like to discuss with you: > > In the class App you're doing all the stuff (routing, calling the > constructor aso) in the constructor. Would it not be better to have > separate functions for that? I like the way I learned from using Java: The > constructor is only for initializing the variables you need to execute the > other functions of this class. > Of course you can have a function that then calls all those small > functions and maybe directly return the output. > > I dislike the way you treat with the model .. currently it gets the > controller, the view and the app itself. If you ask me the model only needs > some configuration. I cannot come up with an idea where you'd need more > than a connection-string and some additional settings. The model has > several methods to gather the data that has been requested and gives it > back. If you'd ask me, there's no need for interaction with the app, > controller or view. > > I'd like to see an option for the router like the one I've seen in > symfony2 ... that was quite nice .. There you can define a regexp that > should match the called url, some variables that should be extracted from > that and some default-variables. It's quite hard to explain in the short > term, but take a look at their documentation: > http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/routing.html > > I'd like you to create a small workflow what your framework is doing in > which order. Your framework to me looks like this image: > http://imageshack.us/f/52/mvcoriginal.png/ But I'd rethink if this > structure would give you more flexibility: > http://betterexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/rails/mvc-rails.png > > I hope you got some input here you can work with. I'd like to hear your > feedback. > > Bye > Simon > > > 2012/2/12 Elbert F > >> I'm looking for constructive feedback on Swiftlet, a tiny MVC framework >> that leverages the OO capabilities of PHP 5.3. It's intentionally >> featureless and should familiar to those experienced with MVC. Any >> comments >> on architecture, code and documentation quality are very welcome. >> >> Source code and documentation: http://swiftlet.org >> > >
[PHP] Re: Swiftlet is quite possibly the smallest MVC framework you'll ever use.
Hi Paul, Swiftlet implements PSR-0, an unofficial standard that many of the larger frameworks seem to be adopting. It simply maps namespaces to a path, e.g. Foo\Bar\Baz translates to Foo/Bar/Baz.php. The advantage is that you should be able to drop in third-party libraries which are included by the same autoloader and without naming conflicts. https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/master/accepted/PSR-0.md Elbert > > Hi Simon, > > > > I think you're right that I may be abusing the constructor a bit. I'm going > > to follow your suggestion and split it up into smaller functions. I'm also > > thinking of moving the set_error_handler and spl_autoload_register > > functions to index.php where Swiftlet is bootstrapped so they can be > > changed. > > I didn't look thoroughly at your code (though, if the respondent's > perceptions were correct, I'd have to agree with his prescriptions for > improvement). But I wanted to make a comment about autoloaders, since > you mentioned it. > > My philosophy, since autoloading was introduced, was that it was a cool > way to avoid having a lot of complicated file inclusion calls all over > the place. Just tell the autoloader function where different types of > files were located, and then just instantiate classes as you like. Easy. > > But I recently did some work for one of these companies with a million > file internally developed framework. And at the top of each file, they'd > include a require_once() (or similar) call for each of the files which > would be called if you needed to instantiate a class from any of those > files. So rather than putting all the magic in an autoloader function, > they'd simply include the file where they knew it would be needed. > (E.g., you know you're going to be calling your Date class in this file, > so you put a require_once() call to the file that contains it at the top > of this file.) > > The more I've thought about it since then, the more I've considered it a > Good Thing(tm). It makes troubleshooting existing code a whole lot > easier. I don't have to wonder what the autoloader is doing or where the > files are, on which the current file depends. It sort of obviates the > autoloader stuff, but I'd rather do that than spend hours trying to > track down which file in which directory contains the class which paints > the screen blue or whatever. (Yes, I'm aware that require_once() > introduces some latency.) > > Just something to consider. > > Paul > > -- > Paul M. Foster > http://noferblatz.com > http://quillandmouse.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: Swiftlet is quite possibly the smallest MVC framework you'll ever use.
Hi Simon, Moving the set_error_handler to index.php gives the developer the ability to remove it before pushing the site to a production environment. I agree that in most cases you don't want the live site to fail completely when it trips over an unset variable but I prefer to have it on by default to encourage good habits. Moving the autoloader as well is a good idea but I'd need a copy of the function wherever I bootstrap Swiftlet (e.g. tests). It doesn't seem worth the trouble to avoid two require statements. Plugins are quite simple and can indeed extend anything, including other plugins. Elbert http://swiftlet.org > Hi, Elbert > > I personally would remove the set_error_handler completely. This is a > configuration that the administrator has to handle himself. In a > development-env they want to see all errors, warnings etc, yes - even a > strict_notice. But in a production-env they dont want to show anything to > the user - just show a general error if something really heavy happened. > You can put that in the index.php but I'd wrap it in comments or remove it. > > In my opinion it's a good idea to move the autoloader into the index.php. > Then you can even call your app class using the autoloader ;) > > I'm just curious what exactly you want to try with the plugins ... Should > they simply be extensions or also possibilities to extend other plugins? I > also wrote my own framework 3 years ago and was more about making things > way more complex than they could be just to think about maximum flexibility > .. > > I pretty much also like the no-config part. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration > > > Bye > Simon > > 2012/2/12 Elbert F > >> Hi Simon, >> >> I think you're right that I may be abusing the constructor a bit. I'm >> going to follow your suggestion and split it up into smaller functions. I'm >> also thinking of moving the set_error_handler and spl_autoload_register >> functions to index.php where Swiftlet is bootstrapped so they can be >> changed. >> >> You make another good point about the model; it's never supposed to access >> the controller or view. I updated the code to reflect this. It should work >> like your second flowchart< http://betterexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/rails/mvc-rails.png>(perhaps with the added concept of plugins, which can hook into anything). >> >> Symfony's routing is nice, many smaller frameworks take a similar approach >> (e.g. Sinatra <http://www.sinatrarb.com/> and ToroPHP<http://toroweb.org/ >). >> However, I like the fact that Swiftlet requires no configuration. Just drop >> in your class and it works. The file structure and classes already do a >> good job describing themselves. >> >> Excellent feedback, thanks! >> >> Elbert >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Schick < >> simonsimc...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Elbert >>> >>> I've looked through the code and found it quite tiny :) I like that. >>> >>> Until now I found some things that I'd like to discuss with you: >>> >>> In the class App you're doing all the stuff (routing, calling the >>> constructor aso) in the constructor. Would it not be better to have >>> separate functions for that? I like the way I learned from using Java: The >>> constructor is only for initializing the variables you need to execute the >>> other functions of this class. >>> Of course you can have a function that then calls all those small >>> functions and maybe directly return the output. >>> >>> I dislike the way you treat with the model .. currently it gets the >>> controller, the view and the app itself. If you ask me the model only needs >>> some configuration. I cannot come up with an idea where you'd need more >>> than a connection-string and some additional settings. The model has >>> several methods to gather the data that has been requested and gives it >>> back. If you'd ask me, there's no need for interaction with the app, >>> controller or view. >>> >>> I'd like to see an option for the router like the one I've seen in >>> symfony2 ... that was quite nice .. There you can define a regexp that >>> should match the called url, some variables that should be extracted from >>> that and some default-variables. It's quite hard to explain in the short >>> term, but take a look at their documentation: >>> http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/routing.html >>&
Re: [PHP] pathinfo or other
SCRIPT_NAME is a server side path, try REQUEST_URI. This includes the query string but it's easy to remove. Elbert http://swiftlet.org On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Donovan Brooke wrote: > Hello, > > What is the best way to get the /somedir/ values in the request URI? > > I tried > $t_pathinfo = $_SERVER['PATH_INFO']; > > but was given an error of undefined index. After looking at the docs, it > appears the error derives from something I may have to do in the .ini file. > > However, is there a standard/better way of grabbing the info after the > host and before the query string.. perhaps 'SCRIPT_NAME'? > > Thanks! > > Donovan > > > > > -- > D Brooke > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
