Thanks for that clarification. I see what you both mean. I apologise if I think I sound like I know what I'm talking about - I did admit I'm merely an amateur. Nor have I studied computer science (just a hobbyist with his own ... dynamic PHP websites).
I would however like your input on ZFs performance. I just feel like there are parts of the framework that are overkill. Perhaps exchanging drying up code in favor of performance? So my question comes down to...is that balance there or does ZF really assume one over the other? Then again you'll always get lowered performance for more features. Oh well, I think I'll stick with my own design patterns as I'm privy to the FULL advantages of the MVC model yet. Maybe as time goes by eventually I'll just get sucked into true MVC :-p Thanks for your...dealing with my request. Hehe. Dave On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/5/08, David Di Biase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > As a matter of fact right after e-mailing my last response, I figured it > > out. It now seems easy enough and I've gone ahead and implemented a VERY > > basic MVC model yet not fully-fledged ZF MVC. I setup a bootstrap and am > > currently funneling requests to scripts, then breaking off the code (on my > > own) into separate actions and OO classes. I feel very comfortable with this > > and am quite happy with the direction. > > > > It was just that initial hump of understanding what was going on with > > the view and layout class that got be stumped, but it's coming along nicely. > > I'm actually quite excited with what I've come up with - it's *extremely* > > flexible now that I've got it setup properly. > > > > I would like to add however that I find an almost paradoxical notion in > > ZF. It's claimed that the parts can be split-off and re-used in any way to > > remain flexible, but in reality what I found in my initial testing/learning > > phase was that people just kept telling me that proper MVC was easier. The > > paradox is that there are claims that they can be used as standalone but > > ultimately you are driven to just using MVC - which for developers who are > > trying to take baby-steps into DRYing up their current sites, requires a > > complete re-code - which seems unavoidable. Basically it seems very biased > > towards MVC; perhaps a natural or even intended effect! > > > > Either way now I'm on a roll but before. I think the community would be > > better served by producing a manual for standalone use of each module. This > > would increase the frameworks use by allowing people to become familiar with > > the modules on their current projects (which are most likely NOT MVC). > > Basically, I'm hoping to push for better support for standalone use - that's > > all. > > > > David > > :-) > > > Basically, I think the idea is that it is recommended to use the ZF MVC, > but the advanced developers that explicitly want their own setup can do so. > Besides, the loose coupling means that a project can very easily just use > Zend_Search_Lucene, for example. So if you're going to use the whole > framework, it's recommended to use the ZF MVC unless you *really* do not > want to, while if you're interested in a particular component, it is > possible to use just that (e.g. if you prefer CodeIgniter or whatever). > > Cheers, > > -- > Vincent -- David Di Biase
