Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:46:32 -0500
From: "Brian D."
To: NYPHP Talk
Subject: [nyphp-talk] Frameworks & Fast Iterations
- How do you deal with quickly-morphing PHP frameworks when some
applications tend to stay in production for years at a time?
- Do any of you have a good experience with a fr
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Konstantin Rozinov wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I'm trying to run the same php script via the command line interface
> on several remote servers.
> I'd like to do it securely preferably over ssh. Right now, I'm using
> the ssh2 class from php, but getting very inconsist
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Petros Ziogas wrote:
> I have the exact same problem.
> I find it a little immature to change the way a framework is deployed and
> the setup after 6 months.
> I created a nice CMS based on Zend 1.6 and now I see that 1.8.4 is
> completely different and nothing work
Very ontopic image for our discussion:
http://highscalability.com/nsfw-hilarious-fault-tolerance-cartoon
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
> Memcache is your safest option for an in-memory solution, for sure.
> Realistically, does memcache even have a competitor in that regard?
Chris Snyder wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Leam Hall wrote:
If you're coming out with site-breaking changes every 6 months and not
supporting older versions, why would anyone use the product? Frameworks
should be a tool, not a master. They should save time.
Or so I thought. Saves me t
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Leam Hall wrote:
> If you're coming out with site-breaking changes every 6 months and not
> supporting older versions, why would anyone use the product? Frameworks
> should be a tool, not a master. They should save time.
>
> Or so I thought. Saves me the trouble of
Memcache is your safest option for an in-memory solution, for sure.
Realistically, does memcache even have a competitor in that regard?
For persistent storage, you should look at MongoDB and Project
Voldemort. Voldemort is insanely fast as a key/value store, and
coupled with BerkeleyDB storage is
If you're coming out with site-breaking changes every 6 months and not
supporting older versions, why would anyone use the product? Frameworks
should be a tool, not a master. They should save time.
Or so I thought. Saves me the trouble of learning one.
Leam
I work with the assumption that the site will *need* to be rewritten in
18-24 months. If you can live with the current version of the framework,
keep it on hand. The idea being, you can leap-frog several versions of the
framework, and refactor/rewrite with large changes on both the site and the
fra
Ouch! I was thinking of going to a framework from my own setup, but
hearing this worries me. I'm wondering if there are other frameworks that pay
more attention to backward compatibility?
In a message dated 7/25/2009 6:40:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
petros.zio...@gmail.com writes:
I have
I have the exact same problem.
I find it a little immature to change the way a framework is deployed and
the setup after 6 months.
I created a nice CMS based on Zend 1.6 and now I see that 1.8.4 is
completely different and nothing works.
I am one step from going back to my own framework where I k
11 matches
Mail list logo
