<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Redesigning A Redesign</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.gordaen.com/2007/08/27/redesigning-a-redesign/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.gordaen.com/2007/08/27/redesigning-a-redesign/</link>
	<description>Ramblings about art, education, Linux and a lot more</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:12:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gordaen</title>
		<link>http://blog.gordaen.com/2007/08/27/redesigning-a-redesign/#comment-28388</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordaen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.gordaen.com/2007/08/27/redesigning-a-redesign/#comment-28388</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately, the show_404() function is built into Common.php (line 179), though you can extend the exceptions class and rewrite the show_404 method that is there.  Then you run into a question of how much of the framework has been loaded when the 404 is called.  That's not the only issue I've had with CI, just the recent one.  I think I would ultimately be better off writing my own framework since I would be able to fully customize it to my needs, reducing overhead and making it take better advantage of PHP5 features.  I still have not decided for sure one way or the other at this point.

Python/Django is gaining quite a bit of a following at work.  Django seems to have a similar feature set to symfony, but is perhaps a bit more clear.  PHP was a language I could pick up just by looking at it.  Something in it just makes it "click" for me (perhaps because I dabbled with C when I was very young).  Python looks intriguing, but it's not as intuitive to me.  I'd like to learn it, but I've got enough hobbies and projects at the moment!

Thanks for the long and thoughtful post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, the show_404() function is built into Common.php (line 179), though you can extend the exceptions class and rewrite the show_404 method that is there.  Then you run into a question of how much of the framework has been loaded when the 404 is called.  That&#8217;s not the only issue I&#8217;ve had with CI, just the recent one.  I think I would ultimately be better off writing my own framework since I would be able to fully customize it to my needs, reducing overhead and making it take better advantage of PHP5 features.  I still have not decided for sure one way or the other at this point.</p>
<p>Python/Django is gaining quite a bit of a following at work.  Django seems to have a similar feature set to symfony, but is perhaps a bit more clear.  PHP was a language I could pick up just by looking at it.  Something in it just makes it &#8220;click&#8221; for me (perhaps because I dabbled with C when I was very young).  Python looks intriguing, but it&#8217;s not as intuitive to me.  I&#8217;d like to learn it, but I&#8217;ve got enough hobbies and projects at the moment!</p>
<p>Thanks for the long and thoughtful post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mason</title>
		<link>http://blog.gordaen.com/2007/08/27/redesigning-a-redesign/#comment-28264</link>
		<dc:creator>Mason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.gordaen.com/2007/08/27/redesigning-a-redesign/#comment-28264</guid>
		<description>404 handling is barebones... no rules saying you can't extend or override the built-in 404 function.  Add a call in there to log the 404. If you think the design is nasty, it gives you a place to make your own.  So it's a bit of work.... I still think the benefits you gain from CI outweigh the small amount of trouble it takes to bend it to your will.

I had a similar experience using the image libraries.  If you use the default behavior, it works great. I wasn't even going for non-default behavior - what I asked for was apparently already a function of the library, but due to logic errors in several places, that functionality was broken.  Reading into the comments, it seemed like the last person to make edits just... didn't follow through. "Might as well return here" it says, or something similar. 

I've implemented quite a few frameworks... usually accidentally, while trying to alleviate busy-work on client projects.  What they say is true: the best frameworks are extracted, not conceived. With that in mind, remember that CI was taken out of pMachine. There is some real-world experience in those bits of code. 

I'd seriously give CI another chance. I've done some crazy things on top of it to get what I want done, but it's a much better, lighter option many of the other MVC frameworks.  CakePHP is poorly documented and full of mixed metaphors, Symfony is overkill a la max. A framework I used once took advantage of PropelDB for the ORM layer... was nice coding, but if you had to make one change to the schema, it was a three/four+ step process.

For the most part, I've abandoned PHP and PHP frameworks.  After working with more dynamic languages like Python and Ruby (and their Django/Ruby counterparts), I have a hard time wanting to code in anything else. I just finished setting up Capistrano for deployment, and while it was a bit of a bitch to get going, it's been smooth sailing from there. Rails kicks more buckets than any other framework I've used.  I've loved it and hated it over the years, leaving it (for fear of it being over-hyped), yet always coming back, because it always delivered.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>404 handling is barebones&#8230; no rules saying you can&#8217;t extend or override the built-in 404 function.  Add a call in there to log the 404. If you think the design is nasty, it gives you a place to make your own.  So it&#8217;s a bit of work&#8230;. I still think the benefits you gain from CI outweigh the small amount of trouble it takes to bend it to your will.</p>
<p>I had a similar experience using the image libraries.  If you use the default behavior, it works great. I wasn&#8217;t even going for non-default behavior - what I asked for was apparently already a function of the library, but due to logic errors in several places, that functionality was broken.  Reading into the comments, it seemed like the last person to make edits just&#8230; didn&#8217;t follow through. &#8220;Might as well return here&#8221; it says, or something similar. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve implemented quite a few frameworks&#8230; usually accidentally, while trying to alleviate busy-work on client projects.  What they say is true: the best frameworks are extracted, not conceived. With that in mind, remember that CI was taken out of pMachine. There is some real-world experience in those bits of code. </p>
<p>I&#8217;d seriously give CI another chance. I&#8217;ve done some crazy things on top of it to get what I want done, but it&#8217;s a much better, lighter option many of the other MVC frameworks.  CakePHP is poorly documented and full of mixed metaphors, Symfony is overkill a la max. A framework I used once took advantage of PropelDB for the ORM layer&#8230; was nice coding, but if you had to make one change to the schema, it was a three/four+ step process.</p>
<p>For the most part, I&#8217;ve abandoned PHP and PHP frameworks.  After working with more dynamic languages like Python and Ruby (and their Django/Ruby counterparts), I have a hard time wanting to code in anything else. I just finished setting up Capistrano for deployment, and while it was a bit of a bitch to get going, it&#8217;s been smooth sailing from there. Rails kicks more buckets than any other framework I&#8217;ve used.  I&#8217;ve loved it and hated it over the years, leaving it (for fear of it being over-hyped), yet always coming back, because it always delivered.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.200 seconds -->
