Re: [fw-general] Zend_Tool does nothing / Zend Framework on MAMP / Mac
I have this for the include_path: .:/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php:/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php/library I have removed the setting in my /etc/profile #commented out this and then logged out... #ZEND_TOOL_INCLUDE_PATH="/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php" #export ZEND_TOOL_INCLUDE_PATH Then when I went to my terminal and ran zf.sh: wenbert-del-rosarios-computer:~ wenbert$ zf.sh * ZF ERROR In order to run the zf command, you need to ensure that Zend Framework is inside your include_path. If you are running this tool without ZendFramework in your include_path, you can alternatively set one of two environment variables to for this tool to work: a) ZEND_TOOL_INCLUDE_PATH_PREPEND="/path/to/ZendFramework/library" OR alternatively b) ZEND_TOOL_INCLUDE_PATH="/path/to/ZendFramework/library" The former (a) will make the specified Zend Framework first in the include_path whereas the latter (b) will replace the include_path with the specified path. Information: original include_path: .: attempted include_path: .: script location: /usr/local/bin/zf.php I have zf.php and zf.sh in /usr/local/bin. I also have display errors on, PHP Version 5.2.6, etc. Your thoughts? - http://blog.ekini.net -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zend_Tool-does-nothing---Zend-Framework-on-MAMP---Mac-tp24437184p24445498.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] A simple idea...
Hi Ralph and Matt,
well, despite the fact that I love the idea of using dependency
injection, as it's also a very nice concept/pattern, I really think
that it's too much overkill for a big application, and creates another
layer of complexity to maintain and code...
Another point is that when thinking about modularity, the "new
module" (or piece of code that performs or observes an action) should
be completely self contained, or, put more properly, the "new module"
should import to it's scope the classes, objects, variables and
constants that it needs to work, not the other way around... So
passing the objects around with __construct, or setter methods, would
require that, if the new piece of code requires a new object that it's
not yet available/passed, the subjacent code be re-factored as well,
and that's not an appealing idea I must say.
Regards,
Bruno
On Jul 11, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
I would like to point out that early on in the development of
Zend_Registry I had advocated providing the option of using it via
dependency injection, but was summarily overruled. ;-)
-Matt
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Ralph Schindler > wrote:
This is effectively a named registry. I advocate the usage of named
registries as a way to be able to group instances together into
collections at named locations.
You could similarly, do this with your own class:
class My_Application {
static function get($name);
static function set($name, $value);
}
as opposed to
function Application($name) { .. }
the only difference is one solution is using an OO paradigm whereas
the other is using a functional paradigm. The result is the same.
I like advocating this b/c you are always 1 method call away from
having the instance you want, which makes programming easy to write
and easy to understand.
OTHER solutions posed by my peers would be a Dependency Injection
Container (you can google this). This has the added benefit of
resolving dependecies as well as "automatic wiring" of instance.
The downside is its a little heavier, and a little more complex (ie:
takes more time to understand). But in larger code-bases, it has
its pros. Also, it does make things easier to test against as static
state does not get in the way as much.
-ralph
Bruno B. B. Magalhaes wrote:
Hi everybody,
first of all, this is my first post on this list, but I've been
using this framework for a long time, since it's very early stages,
and it has been very fun since...
Yesterday I was working in a new client's infrastructure (we have to
by contract) for a very large company in Brazil, and I had a simple
idea when using a registry with variable scopes... For example the
controller can only access the instances of database, router,
request and response, the plugin can only use the configuration,
database, request and response objects... How to deal with this kind
of variable scope registry... Here is my suggestion:
function Application($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Exception('Unable to utilize this
instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be
empty.');
}
if(is_object($Instance))
{
$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
return $Instance;
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
{
return $Instances[$Name];
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
{
return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
}
else
{
throw new Application_Exception('Unable to utilize this
instance (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
(`application`).');
}
}
For the controller scope:
function Controller($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Controller_Exception('Unable to utilize
this instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be
empty.');
}
if(is_object($Instance))
{
$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
return $Instance;
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
{
return $Instances[$Name];
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
{
return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
}
else
{
throw new Application_Controller_Exception('Unable to utilize
this instance (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific
scope (`controller`).');
}
}
And for the plugin scope
function Plugin($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Plugin_Exception('Unable to utilize
this instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be
empty.');
}
i
Re: [fw-general] No one must be using Zend_Db_Table_Abstract ?
FYI the key is ZF-2863
Ralph Schindler-2 wrote:
>
> What is the issue number?
>
> debussy007 wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I submitted, it seems to me, an important bug in the issue tracker a year
>> ago regarding Zend_Db_Table_Abstract
>> Please read below :
>>
>> Hi,
>> When inserting or fetching in a DB,
>> the where condition must be of the following syntax (when using an
>> array):
>> $where = array(
>> 'id_photo = ?' => $pic,
>> 'member_id = ?' => $memberId
>> );
>> But when updating, the above where condition will generate a wrong Sql,
>> so you'll need to apply another syntax , like this one:
>> (get the dbAdapter $db first)
>> $where = array(
>> $db->quoteInto('id_photo = ?', $pic),
>> $db->quoteInto('member_id = ?', $memberId)
>> );
>>
>> Indeed, if you do an "update" or "delete" with a simple array as you
>> would
>> use for fetchAll or fetchRow like ->update(array("id = ?", $id), $data);
>> or
>> ->delete(array("id = ?", $id)); your whole table will be messed up !!
>>
>> I conclude that no one are using those methods and that they have never
>> been
>> tested ?
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/No-one-must-be-using-Zend_Db_Table_Abstract---tp24443437p24443636.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] A simple idea...
I would like to point out that early on in the development of Zend_Registry
I had advocated providing the option of using it via dependency injection,
but was summarily overruled. ;-)
-Matt
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Ralph Schindler
wrote:
> This is effectively a named registry. I advocate the usage of named
> registries as a way to be able to group instances together into collections
> at named locations.
>
> You could similarly, do this with your own class:
>
> class My_Application {
> static function get($name);
> static function set($name, $value);
> }
>
> as opposed to
>
> function Application($name) { .. }
>
>
> the only difference is one solution is using an OO paradigm whereas the
> other is using a functional paradigm. The result is the same.
>
> I like advocating this b/c you are always 1 method call away from having
> the instance you want, which makes programming easy to write and easy to
> understand.
>
> OTHER solutions posed by my peers would be a Dependency Injection Container
> (you can google this). This has the added benefit of resolving dependecies
> as well as "automatic wiring" of instance. The downside is its a little
> heavier, and a little more complex (ie: takes more time to understand). But
> in larger code-bases, it has its pros. Also, it does make things easier to
> test against as static state does not get in the way as much.
>
> -ralph
>
>
>
> Bruno B. B. Magalhaes wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> first of all, this is my first post on this list, but I've been using this
>> framework for a long time, since it's very early stages, and it has been
>> very fun since...
>>
>> Yesterday I was working in a new client's infrastructure (we have to by
>> contract) for a very large company in Brazil, and I had a simple idea when
>> using a registry with variable scopes... For example the controller can only
>> access the instances of database, router, request and response, the plugin
>> can only use the configuration, database, request and response objects...
>> How to deal with this kind of variable scope registry... Here is my
>> suggestion:
>>
>> function Application($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
>> {
>>static $Classes = array();
>>static $Instances = array();
>>if(empty($Name))
>>{
>>throw new Application_Exception('Unable to utilize this instance
>> (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be empty.');
>>}
>>
>>if(is_object($Instance))
>>{
>>$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
>>
>>$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
>> return $Instance;
>>}
>>elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
>>{
>>return $Instances[$Name];
>>}
>>elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
>>{
>>return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
>>}
>>else
>>{
>>throw new Application_Exception('Unable to utilize this instance
>> (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
>> (`application`).');
>>}
>> }
>>
>> For the controller scope:
>>
>> function Controller($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
>> {
>>static $Classes = array();
>>static $Instances = array();
>>if(empty($Name))
>>{
>>throw new Application_Controller_Exception('Unable to utilize this
>> instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be empty.');
>>}
>>
>>if(is_object($Instance))
>>{
>>$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
>>
>>$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
>> return $Instance;
>>}
>>elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
>>{
>>return $Instances[$Name];
>>}
>>elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
>>{
>>return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
>>}
>>else
>>{
>>throw new Application_Controller_Exception('Unable to utilize this
>> instance (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
>> (`controller`).');
>>}
>> }
>>
>> And for the plugin scope
>>
>> function Plugin($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
>> {
>>static $Classes = array();
>>static $Instances = array();
>>if(empty($Name))
>>{
>>throw new Application_Plugin_Exception('Unable to utilize this
>> instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be empty.');
>>}
>>
>>if(is_object($Instance))
>>{
>>$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
>>
>>$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
>> return $Instance;
>>}
>>elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
>>{
>>return $Instances[$Name];
>>}
>>elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
>>{
>>return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
>>}
>>else
>>{
>>throw new Application_Plugin_Exception('Unable to utilize this
>> instance (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
>> (`plugin`).');
>>}
>> }
>>
>> We would add instances to the registry like:
>> Application('Configuration', new Zend_Config());
>> Controller('Configurati
Re: [fw-general] No one must be using Zend_Db_Table_Abstract ?
What is the issue number?
debussy007 wrote:
Hi,
I submitted, it seems to me, an important bug in the issue tracker a year
ago regarding Zend_Db_Table_Abstract
Please read below :
Hi,
When inserting or fetching in a DB,
the where condition must be of the following syntax (when using an array):
$where = array(
'id_photo = ?' => $pic,
'member_id = ?' => $memberId
);
But when updating, the above where condition will generate a wrong Sql,
so you'll need to apply another syntax , like this one:
(get the dbAdapter $db first)
$where = array(
$db->quoteInto('id_photo = ?', $pic),
$db->quoteInto('member_id = ?', $memberId)
);
Indeed, if you do an "update" or "delete" with a simple array as you would
use for fetchAll or fetchRow like ->update(array("id = ?", $id), $data); or
->delete(array("id = ?", $id)); your whole table will be messed up !!
I conclude that no one are using those methods and that they have never been
tested ?
Re: [fw-general] A simple idea...
This is effectively a named registry. I advocate the usage of named
registries as a way to be able to group instances together into
collections at named locations.
You could similarly, do this with your own class:
class My_Application {
static function get($name);
static function set($name, $value);
}
as opposed to
function Application($name) { .. }
the only difference is one solution is using an OO paradigm whereas the
other is using a functional paradigm. The result is the same.
I like advocating this b/c you are always 1 method call away from having
the instance you want, which makes programming easy to write and easy to
understand.
OTHER solutions posed by my peers would be a Dependency Injection
Container (you can google this). This has the added benefit of
resolving dependecies as well as "automatic wiring" of instance. The
downside is its a little heavier, and a little more complex (ie: takes
more time to understand). But in larger code-bases, it has its pros.
Also, it does make things easier to test against as static state does
not get in the way as much.
-ralph
Bruno B. B. Magalhaes wrote:
Hi everybody,
first of all, this is my first post on this list, but I've been using
this framework for a long time, since it's very early stages, and it has
been very fun since...
Yesterday I was working in a new client's infrastructure (we have to by
contract) for a very large company in Brazil, and I had a simple idea
when using a registry with variable scopes... For example the controller
can only access the instances of database, router, request and response,
the plugin can only use the configuration, database, request and
response objects... How to deal with this kind of variable scope
registry... Here is my suggestion:
function Application($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Exception('Unable to utilize this instance
(`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be empty.');
}
if(is_object($Instance))
{
$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
return $Instance;
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
{
return $Instances[$Name];
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
{
return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
}
else
{
throw new Application_Exception('Unable to utilize this instance
(`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
(`application`).');
}
}
For the controller scope:
function Controller($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Controller_Exception('Unable to utilize
this instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be
empty.');
}
if(is_object($Instance))
{
$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
return $Instance;
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
{
return $Instances[$Name];
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
{
return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
}
else
{
throw new Application_Controller_Exception('Unable to utilize
this instance (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
(`controller`).');
}
}
And for the plugin scope
function Plugin($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Plugin_Exception('Unable to utilize this
instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be empty.');
}
if(is_object($Instance))
{
$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
return $Instance;
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
{
return $Instances[$Name];
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
{
return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
}
else
{
throw new Application_Plugin_Exception('Unable to utilize this
instance (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
(`plugin`).');
}
}
We would add instances to the registry like:
Application('Configuration', new Zend_Config());
Controller('Configuration', Application('Configuration'));
Plugin('Configuration', Application('Configuration'));
So we are able to use it like this, inside of a controller:
Application('Configuration')->GerParameter('application.address'); OR
Controller('Configuration')->GerParameter('application.address');
Os if this is available inside the plugin, we can use:
Application('Configuration')->GerParameter('application.address'); OR
Plugin('Configuration')->GerParameter('application.address');
Maybe we could have a function called Zend(),
[fw-general] No one must be using Zend_Db_Table_Abstract ?
Hi,
I submitted, it seems to me, an important bug in the issue tracker a year
ago regarding Zend_Db_Table_Abstract
Please read below :
Hi,
When inserting or fetching in a DB,
the where condition must be of the following syntax (when using an array):
$where = array(
'id_photo = ?' => $pic,
'member_id = ?' => $memberId
);
But when updating, the above where condition will generate a wrong Sql,
so you'll need to apply another syntax , like this one:
(get the dbAdapter $db first)
$where = array(
$db->quoteInto('id_photo = ?', $pic),
$db->quoteInto('member_id = ?', $memberId)
);
Indeed, if you do an "update" or "delete" with a simple array as you would
use for fetchAll or fetchRow like ->update(array("id = ?", $id), $data); or
->delete(array("id = ?", $id)); your whole table will be messed up !!
I conclude that no one are using those methods and that they have never been
tested ?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/No-one-must-be-using-Zend_Db_Table_Abstract---tp24443437p24443437.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
[fw-general] A simple idea...
Hi everybody,
first of all, this is my first post on this list, but I've been using
this framework for a long time, since it's very early stages, and it
has been very fun since...
Yesterday I was working in a new client's infrastructure (we have to
by contract) for a very large company in Brazil, and I had a simple
idea when using a registry with variable scopes... For example the
controller can only access the instances of database, router, request
and response, the plugin can only use the configuration, database,
request and response objects... How to deal with this kind of variable
scope registry... Here is my suggestion:
function Application($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Exception('Unable to utilize this instance (`'.
$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be empty.');
}
if(is_object($Instance))
{
$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
return $Instance;
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
{
return $Instances[$Name];
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
{
return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
}
else
{
throw new Application_Exception('Unable to utilize this instance (`'.
$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
(`application`).');
}
}
For the controller scope:
function Controller($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Controller_Exception('Unable to utilize this
instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be empty.');
}
if(is_object($Instance))
{
$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
return $Instance;
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
{
return $Instances[$Name];
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
{
return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
}
else
{
throw new Application_Controller_Exception('Unable to utilize this
instance (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
(`controller`).');
}
}
And for the plugin scope
function Plugin($Name = NULL, $Instance = NULL)
{
static $Classes = array();
static $Instances = array();
if(empty($Name))
{
throw new Application_Plugin_Exception('Unable to utilize this
instance (`'.$Name.'`): The supplied instance name must not be empty.');
}
if(is_object($Instance))
{
$Classes[get_class($Instance)] = $Name;
$Instances[$Name] = $Instance;
return $Instance;
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Name]))
{
return $Instances[$Name];
}
elseif(isset($Instances[$Classes[$Name]]))
{
return $Instances[$Classes[$Name]];
}
else
{
throw new Application_Plugin_Exception('Unable to utilize this
instance (`'.$Name.'`): It was not found within this specific scope
(`plugin`).');
}
}
We would add instances to the registry like:
Application('Configuration', new Zend_Config());
Controller('Configuration', Application('Configuration'));
Plugin('Configuration', Application('Configuration'));
So we are able to use it like this, inside of a controller:
Application('Configuration')->GerParameter('application.address'); OR
Controller('Configuration')->GerParameter('application.address');
Os if this is available inside the plugin, we can use:
Application('Configuration')->GerParameter('application.address'); OR
Plugin('Configuration')->GerParameter('application.address');
Maybe we could have a function called Zend(), to "abstract" the Zend
Registry? It makes the code extremely readable and fluid... Guys, am I
crazy? Is this a pattern of somehow? :D
Best regards,
Bruno B B Magalhaes
Re: [fw-general] Zend_Tool does nothing / Zend Framework on MAMP / Mac
On Saturday 11 July 2009 20:40:50 Ralph Schindler wrote: >Do you have display_errors and display_startup_errors on? If so, do >they show any errors? > >I am betting there is something funky going on in your include_path. > >I am working on some settings that will fix these sorts of issues on >systems where include_paths might include some, rather- non-standard or >unreliable code. This will be in 1.9. Not being a mac user I cant comment on how the standard mac shell works, but I did encounter an issue with a few lines of the zf.sh script in my Linux bash environment. Please see ZF-7137 though I suspect it may not be related to the original problem posted in this thread for reasons outlined below. >wenbert wrote: >> I have tried to setup Zend Framework on my Mac. I do not get zf.sh errors. >> BUT nothing happens when I type “zf.sh” on my terminal/console. >> Here are my settings. >> *Inside my /usr/local/bin* >> wenbert:/usr/local/bin wenbert$ pwd >> /usr/local/bin >> wenbert:/usr/local/bin wenbert$ ls -la zf* >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 wenbert admin 3004 Jul 11 11:14 zf.php >> PATH="/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin" >> export PATH >> >> ZEND_TOOL_INCLUDE_PATH="/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php/library" >> export ZEND_TOOL_INCLUDE_PATH It would appear the the location of your ZF tool shell script is *not* in your path... Unless your user local .bashrc adds /usr/local/bin to the path env variable?
Re: [fw-general] Zend_Tool does nothing / Zend Framework on MAMP / Mac
Do you have display_errors and display_startup_errors on? If so, do
they show any errors?
I am betting there is something funky going on in your include_path.
I am working on some settings that will fix these sorts of issues on
systems where include_paths might include some, rather- non-standard or
unreliable code. This will be in 1.9.
-ralph
wenbert wrote:
I have tried to setup Zend Framework on my Mac. I do not get zf.sh errors.
BUT nothing happens when I type “zf.sh” on my terminal/console.
Here are my settings.
*Inside my /usr/local/bin*
wenbert:/usr/local/bin wenbert$ pwd
/usr/local/bin
wenbert:/usr/local/bin wenbert$ ls -la zf*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 wenbert admin 3004 Jul 11 11:14 zf.php
-rwxrwxrwx 1 wenbert admin 1404 Jul 11 11:14 zf.sh
*Where my Zend library is located:*
wenbert:/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php wenbert$ pwd
/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php
wenbert:/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php wenbert$ ls
Archive OS PEAR.phpbuild doc
library peclcmd.php
Console PEARSystem.php dataextensions
pearcmd.php zf.bat
wenbert:/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php wenbert$ cd library/
wenbert:/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php/library wenbert$ ls
Zend
wenbert:/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php/library wenbert$
*My /etc/profile*
# System-wide .profile for sh(1)
PATH="/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin"
export PATH
ZEND_TOOL_INCLUDE_PATH="/Applications/MAMP/bin/php5/lib/php/library"
export ZEND_TOOL_INCLUDE_PATH
if [ "${BASH-no}" != "no" ]; then
[ -r /etc/bashrc ] && . /etc/bashrc
fi
http://blog.ekini.net
View this message in context: Zend_Tool does nothing / Zend Framework on
MAMP / Mac
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive
at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] Zend_Form_Element_Submit class attribute
phpoptimizer wrote:
>
> How to add a 'class' attribute to Zend_Form_Element_Submit element? It
> doesn’t recognize it whatever way I tried:
>
> $this->addElement(
> 'Submit',
> 'btn_search',
> array(
> 'label' => 'Search',
> 'decorators' => $this->buttonDecorators,
> ‘class’ => ‘class_name’
> )
> );
>
> or
> $this->getElement(‘btn_search’)->setAttrib('class', 'class_name');
>
>
Are you sure everything is fine with your decorators? Because i tried your
first piece of code without decorators:
this->addElement('Submit', 'btn_search', array('label' => 'Search', 'class'
=> 'class_name'));
and it works fine.
Good luck,
Dmitry.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Zend_Form_Element_Submit-class-attribute-tp24418615p24442086.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] Zend Framework Custom Builds
I finished script which makes zip archive of dependent components, but now i see I shouldn't take 'Sub' dependency from http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/requirements.html#requirements.dependencies, am I right? For proper working I need only, hard, soft and fix dependent components? Regards, Saša Stamenković On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:30 AM, till wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Weier > O'Phinney wrote: > > -- Саша Стаменковић wrote > > (on Friday, 10 July 2009, 11:40 AM +0200): > >> Thinking about building custom downloader, which will build download > with > >> dependencies, will anyone use it? > >> > >> Maybe this can be added to Zend_Tool and then used on zend website... > > > > If we go this route, we'll utilize a PEAR channel instead of > > re-inventing the wheel. > > > > However, it will take some work for us to determine what constitutes an > > individual package, and how to specify the dependencies -- and as that > > will likely be a fairly large task, it's been a backburner task for some > > time as a result. Any solution we come up with will need to be > > automated, to ensure that we don't need to manually determine this > > information for each new component, or when component features change. > > > > Would anyone like to start working on such a project? > > > > I have a script that is 99% done. Splits up top-level components into > pear packages. I could contribute that if wanted. I didn't know Zend > wanted a PEAR channel for the Zend Framework. > > Till >
