PHP site development

[Me]

I would like to redesign my existing site into php using classes.
I am not the most experienced developer with PHP, and would like to know
if anyone can give me some input on a starting point for a class library.
Basically, the idea is to have as much of the content served dynamically,
using a mySQL database. My catalog site has grown to over 1,100 pages,
and is continuing to grow. It's getting ridiculous to keep performing
manual updates.

Thanks for any input. I appreciate the feedback.

[Tony Marston]

Re: PHP site development

Take a look at http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...structure.html
which identifies a development environment based on the 3 tier architecture.

Also look at
http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...ontroller.html which
shows how it also incorporates the Model-View-Controller design pattern.

There is a sample application based on these architectures described in
http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql...plication.html which you can
run online. You can also download all the source code and see how it ticks.
This uses classes for all entity and database access, so it should give you
an idea of what can be done.

It looks complicated, but using the modules that I have created it is
possible to build and maintain web components with much less effort.

HTH.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

"Me" <jdangler@atlan tic.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.0 7.05.20.34.01.8 7397@atlantic.n et...[color=blue]
> I would like to redesign my existing site into php using classes.
> I am not the most experienced developer with PHP, and would like to know
> if anyone can give me some input on a starting point for a class library.
> Basically, the idea is to have as much of the content served dynamically,
> using a mySQL database. My catalog site has grown to over 1,100 pages,
> and is continuing to grow. It's getting ridiculous to keep performing
> manual updates.
>
> Thanks for any input. I appreciate the feedback.
>[/color]

[Me]

Re: PHP site development

Tony~
Having spent lots of time in the database world, I must say that I relate
yo some of your history very well. I have spent the last 6 hours or so
reading through different articles and tutorials which you have authored
on your site, and I am happy to say that I am learning as much as I ever
have in a longer period of time than I care to remember. While PHP
doesn't seem strange to me (especially in the context you put it in
combining object oriented approaches to data manipulation), some of how
it is implemented appears a little 'fuzzy'. But, I have a feeling that
by the time I complete reading the rest of the referenced parts
mentioned on your site, I may well have enough information to poke
through the fog and formulate some ideas on how to properly design an
implementable application for web use. Thank you very much for creating
this site. I consider it a valuable resource on the subject. I hope
that you will remain in the 'universe' for further inquiries by those of
us who appreciate what you have endeavored to teach.

Kind regards...

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004
22:10:39 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
[color=blue]
> Take a look at http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...structure.html
> which identifies a development environment based on the 3 tier architecture.
>
> Also look at
> http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...ontroller.html which
> shows how it also incorporates the Model-View-Controller design pattern.
>
> There is a sample application based on these architectures described in
> http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql...plication.html which you can
> run online. You can also download all the source code and see how it ticks.
> This uses classes for all entity and database access, so it should give you
> an idea of what can be done.
>
> It looks complicated, but using the modules that I have created it is
> possible to build and maintain web components with much less effort.
>
> HTH.[/color]

[Tony Marston]

Re: PHP site development


"Me" <jdangler@atlan tic.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.0 7.06.06.33.53.8 08390@atlantic. net...[color=blue]
> Tony~
> Having spent lots of time in the database world, I must say that I relate
> yo some of your history very well. I have spent the last 6 hours or so
> reading through different articles and tutorials which you have authored
> on your site, and I am happy to say that I am learning as much as I ever
> have in a longer period of time than I care to remember. While PHP
> doesn't seem strange to me (especially in the context you put it in
> combining object oriented approaches to data manipulation), some of how
> it is implemented appears a little 'fuzzy'.[/color]

New and different implementations always appear fuzzy at first, but as you
become more familiar with them the fog begins to clear.
[color=blue]
> But, I have a feeling that
> by the time I complete reading the rest of the referenced parts
> mentioned on your site, I may well have enough information to poke
> through the fog and formulate some ideas on how to properly design an
> implementable application for web use. Thank you very much for creating
> this site. I consider it a valuable resource on the subject. I hope
> that you will remain in the 'universe' for further inquiries by those of
> us who appreciate what you have endeavored to teach.
>
> Kind regards...[/color]

Thank you for those kind words. It is nice to know that my humble efforts
are appreciated.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

[color=blue]
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004
> 22:10:39 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Take a look at[/color][/color]
http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...structure.html[color=blue][color=green]
> > which identifies a development environment based on the 3 tier[/color][/color]
architecture.[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > Also look at
> > http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...ontroller.html which
> > shows how it also incorporates the Model-View-Controller design pattern.
> >
> > There is a sample application based on these architectures described in
> > http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql...plication.html which you[/color][/color]
can[color=blue][color=green]
> > run online. You can also download all the source code and see how it[/color][/color]
ticks.[color=blue][color=green]
> > This uses classes for all entity and database access, so it should give[/color][/color]
you[color=blue][color=green]
> > an idea of what can be done.
> >
> > It looks complicated, but using the modules that I have created it is
> > possible to build and maintain web components with much less effort.
> >
> > HTH.[/color]
>[/color]

[atlantic]

Re: PHP site development

Tony~
I'm really enjoying going through this material. I can already see a number
of application implementations for this architecture. Would you consider
this architecture to be 'overkill' for the basic functionality of a catalog
type website? The current site I've inherited has alot of pages (over
1,000) , and really needs this kind of organization, but I have yet to see
anyone produce even the most simplistic sample of one which can be built on.
To date, the site I have inherited is strictly view, with the exception
that, an on-line order form has been added (which needs complete revamping
btw) was added. While I have a 'grand design' in mind for more user
interaction (logins, tracking, etc), I'd like to start with the users view
and work front to back. While I know that, strictly speaking, that backend
is historically the place I've always begun my work, I'd like to try and get
a feel for the front-end design using your architecture. If you have a
moment and would like to see what I am talking about, the site is located at
www.genofit.com . I look forward to, and greatly respect your feedback.

Thank you again for your help. I seem to be learning more from your web
site each time I read through it...

Regards
"Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ccdqpo$7vc $1$8302bc10@new s.demon.co.uk.. .[color=blue]
>
> "Me" <jdangler@atlan tic.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.0 7.06.06.33.53.8 08390@atlantic. net...[color=green]
> > Tony~
> > Having spent lots of time in the database world, I must say that I[/color][/color]
relate[color=blue][color=green]
> > yo some of your history very well. I have spent the last 6 hours or so
> > reading through different articles and tutorials which you have authored
> > on your site, and I am happy to say that I am learning as much as I ever
> > have in a longer period of time than I care to remember. While PHP
> > doesn't seem strange to me (especially in the context you put it in
> > combining object oriented approaches to data manipulation), some of how
> > it is implemented appears a little 'fuzzy'.[/color]
>
> New and different implementations always appear fuzzy at first, but as you
> become more familiar with them the fog begins to clear.
>[color=green]
> > But, I have a feeling that
> > by the time I complete reading the rest of the referenced parts
> > mentioned on your site, I may well have enough information to poke
> > through the fog and formulate some ideas on how to properly design an
> > implementable application for web use. Thank you very much for creating
> > this site. I consider it a valuable resource on the subject. I hope
> > that you will remain in the 'universe' for further inquiries by those of
> > us who appreciate what you have endeavored to teach.
> >
> > Kind regards...[/color]
>
> Thank you for those kind words. It is nice to know that my humble efforts
> are appreciated.
>
> --
> Tony Marston
>
> http://www.tonymarston.net
>
>
>[color=green]
> > On Mon, 05 Jul 2004
> > 22:10:39 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Take a look at[/color][/color]
> http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...structure.html[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > which identifies a development environment based on the 3 tier[/color][/color]
> architecture.[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >
> > > Also look at
> > > http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...ontroller.html[/color][/color][/color]
which[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > shows how it also incorporates the Model-View-Controller design[/color][/color][/color]
pattern.[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > >
> > > There is a sample application based on these architectures described[/color][/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql...plication.html which you[/color][/color]
> can[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > run online. You can also download all the source code and see how it[/color][/color]
> ticks.[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > This uses classes for all entity and database access, so it should[/color][/color][/color]
give[color=blue]
> you[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > an idea of what can be done.
> > >
> > > It looks complicated, but using the modules that I have created it is
> > > possible to build and maintain web components with much less effort.
> > >
> > > HTH.[/color]
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Henk Verhoeven]

Re: PHP site development

Hi Tony,

Interesting site. MVC, 3 tier, yes, of course! But XSLT may as yet be
more of a personal preference of yours. For most php developers, php's
own hypertext preprocessing might be easier. And it CAN be used with
presentation logic objects, see

http://www.phppeanuts.org/site/index_php/Pagina/26/principle.html

and example 5:

http://www.phppeanuts.org/site/index_php/Pagina/149/+5.+Custom+skin.html

Greetings,

Henk Verhoeven,

https://www.phpPeanuts.org

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
> Take a look at http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...structure.html
> which identifies a development environment based on the 3 tier architecture.
>
> Also look at
> http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...ontroller.html which
> shows how it also incorporates the Model-View-Controller design pattern.
>
> There is a sample application based on these architectures described in
> http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql...plication.html which you can
> run online. You can also download all the source code and see how it ticks.
> This uses classes for all entity and database access, so it should give you
> an idea of what can be done.
>
> It looks complicated, but using the modules that I have created it is
> possible to build and maintain web components with much less effort.
>
> HTH.
>[/color]

[Tony Marston]

Re: PHP site development


"atlantic" <j@no-spam.net> wrote in message
news:w9MGc.11$n G3.17557@monger .newsread.com.. .[color=blue]
> Tony~
> I'm really enjoying going through this material. I can already see a[/color]
number[color=blue]
> of application implementations for this architecture. Would you consider
> this architecture to be 'overkill' for the basic functionality of a[/color]
catalog[color=blue]
> type website?[/color]

You do not use different architectures for different sizes of application. A
small application may grow into a large application over time, and you don't
want to switch architectures in mid stream.

In order to provide the benefits of a RAD (Rapid Application Development)
environment what you need is a series of components that provide standard
functionality in a reusable form. If you look at Figure 5 in
http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...e.html#figure5 you will
see what looks like a very complicated architecture, but the following parts
have already been written and are waiting to be used:
- the abstract table class
- the validation class
- the DML class
- dialog type scripts
- generic XSL files
- a default CSS file

To build a component all you have to do is the following:-
- For each database table construct a subclass which extends the abstract
table class. As a bare minimum this simply describes the structure of that
database table.
- Construct a component script (see
http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...mponent-script)
which identifies three things:
a) Which business entity (database table) to use - this is the Model part of
MVC.
b) Which screen structure script to use - this is the View part of MVC.
c) Which dialog type script to use - this is the controller part of MVC.

You should be able to recognise that the complicated part has already been
done so that the construction of new components is made as simple as
possible.
[color=blue]
> The current site I've inherited has a lot of pages (over
> 1,000) , and really needs this kind of organization, but I have yet to see
> anyone produce even the most simplistic sample of one which can be built[/color]
on.[color=blue]
> To date, the site I have inherited is strictly view, with the exception
> that, an on-line order form has been added (which needs complete revamping
> btw) was added. While I have a 'grand design' in mind for more user
> interaction (logins, tracking, etc), I'd like to start with the users view
> and work front to back. While I know that, strictly speaking, that backend
> is historically the place I've always begun my work, I'd like to try and[/color]
get[color=blue]
> a feel for the front-end design using your architecture.[/color]

There are two parts to every website - the front-end (which is accessed by
the general public) and the back-end (which is accessed by the site
administrator). The back-end maintains the database which is used by the
front-end. This may appear simple at first but has a habit of growing. For
example, you may have a large database which several people can access for
maintenance purposes but you decide that not all that these people should be
able to update every part of the database. That's where an access control
system is needed. You may then decide that you need an audit trail to keep
track of who changed what and when. That's when you need an audit trail
system. You may then decide that you need a workflow system so that one
action can automatically trigger one or more other actions.

You may be interested to know that I have already extended my software to
include a Role Based Access Control (RBAC) system, an Audit Trail system and
a Workflow system, so that proves how extensible it is.
[color=blue]
> If you have a
> moment and would like to see what I am talking about, the site is located[/color]
at[color=blue]
> www.genofit.com . I look forward to, and greatly respect your feedback.[/color]

The colours are a bit dark and gloomy, and I personally do not like the use
of client-side scripting (especially ActiveX controls) which is why I have
those options turned off. Consequently parts of your website did not display
as you intended.
[color=blue]
> Thank you again for your help. I seem to be learning more from your web
> site each time I read through it...[/color]

It is nice to know that my humble efforts are appreciated.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

[Tony Marston]

Re: PHP site development


"Henk Verhoeven" <news@phppeanut sREMOVE-THIS.org> wrote in message
news:ccghif$jh5 $1@news3.tilbu1 .nb.home.nl...[color=blue]
> Hi Tony,
>
> Interesting site. MVC, 3 tier, yes, of course! But XSLT may as yet be
> more of a personal preference of yours. For most php developers, php's
> own hypertext preprocessing might be easier.[/color]

I know that PHP was designed to output HTML directly, but past experience
with other languages has taught me the benefit of separating presentation
logic from business logic. This meant that I needed to use some sort of
templating system to deal with all HTML output. As I was already familiar
with XML and XSL, and because PHP already had the capabilities to deal with
them both, I decided to go with this approach. The problem with a templating
system like Smarty is that it is tied to PHP whereas XML and XSL exist as
international standards which are maintained by the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C) and are consequently available to a much wider audience. My
experience with XSL has allowed me to create generic stylesheets with an
amazing amout of reusability, so as far as I am concerned it is was a good
choice.

Other people may be happy with other solutions, but that is their choice.
[color=blue]
> And it CAN be used with
> presentation logic objects, see
> http://www.phppeanuts.org/site/index...principle.html
> and example 5:
> http://www.phppeanuts.org/site/index...stom+skin.html[/color]

I don't think I shall abandon my own approach just yet.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

[color=blue]
> Greetings,
>
> Henk Verhoeven,
> www.phpPeanuts.org
>
>
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green]
> > Take a look at[/color][/color]
http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...structure.html[color=blue][color=green]
> > which identifies a development environment based on the 3 tier[/color][/color]
architecture.[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > Also look at
> > http://www.tonymarston.co.uk/php-mys...ontroller.html which
> > shows how it also incorporates the Model-View-Controller design pattern.
> >
> > There is a sample application based on these architectures described in
> > http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql...plication.html which you[/color][/color]
can[color=blue][color=green]
> > run online. You can also download all the source code and see how it[/color][/color]
ticks.[color=blue][color=green]
> > This uses classes for all entity and database access, so it should give[/color][/color]
you[color=blue][color=green]
> > an idea of what can be done.
> >
> > It looks complicated, but using the modules that I have created it is
> > possible to build and maintain web components with much less effort.
> >
> > HTH.
> >[/color]
>[/color]

[Gary L. Burnore]

Re: PHP site development

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:45:33 +0100, "Tony Marston"
<tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"atlantic" <j@no-spam.net> wrote in message
>news:w9MGc.11$ nG3.17557@monge r.newsread.com. ..[color=green]
>> Tony~
>> I'm really enjoying going through this material. I can already see a[/color]
>number[color=green]
>> of application implementations for this architecture. Would you consider
>> this architecture to be 'overkill' for the basic functionality of a[/color]
>catalog[color=green]
>> type website?[/color]
>
>You do not use different architectures for different sizes of application.[/color]

You might not. Many do.
[color=blue]
>A small application may grow into a large application over time, and you don't
>want to switch architectures in mid stream.[/color]

Yeah and pigs may fly so you should always carry an umbrella. Some
systems, by design, are small and will remain small and require a
different architecture.


[snip very good stuff that's not applicible to every situation]

[color=blue]
>There are two parts to every website - the front-end (which is accessed by
>the general public) and the back-end (which is accessed by the site
>administrator) .[/color]

Perhaps you meant 'you can devide a website into two parts if you want
to'?

Overkill, when not required, costs more money, wastes time on the
upstart and causes headaches later. It's not _ALWAYS_ a good thing to
over do it at the start.


--
gburnore@databa six dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³ÝÛº ݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³Ý ÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³ÝÛº ݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³Ý ÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³ÝÛº ݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³Ý ÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
=============== =============== =============== =============== ===============
Want one? GET one! http://www.databasix.com
=============== =============== =============== =============== ===============

[Tony Marston]

Re: PHP site development


"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@datab asix.com> wrote in message
news:ccgkt5$la6 $1@blackhelicop ter.databasix.c om...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:45:33 +0100, "Tony Marston"
> <tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >"atlantic" <j@no-spam.net> wrote in message
> >news:w9MGc.11$ nG3.17557@monge r.newsread.com. ..[color=darkred]
> >> Tony~
> >> I'm really enjoying going through this material. I can already see a[/color]
> >number[color=darkred]
> >> of application implementations for this architecture. Would you[/color][/color][/color]
consider[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> this architecture to be 'overkill' for the basic functionality of a[/color]
> >catalog[color=darkred]
> >> type website?[/color]
> >
> >You do not use different architectures for different sizes of[/color][/color]
application.[color=blue]
>
> You might not. Many do.[/color]

Then that is their choice. IMHO it is a poor choice.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >A small application may grow into a large application over time, and you[/color][/color]
don't[color=blue][color=green]
> >want to switch architectures in mid stream.[/color]
>
> Yeah and pigs may fly so you should always carry an umbrella. Some
> systems, by design, are small and will remain small and require a
> different architecture.[/color]

I have seen a lot of systems which start small yet grow and grow over time.
A single architecture which can handle both small and large systems would be
more useful than separate architectures that can only handle one or the
other. If you write a small system which cannot be extended as new
requirements materialise I am sure that your customers will be greatly
impressed - NOT!
[color=blue]
> [snip very good stuff that's not applicible to every situation]
>
>[color=green]
> >There are two parts to every website - the front-end (which is accessed[/color][/color]
by[color=blue][color=green]
> >the general public) and the back-end (which is accessed by the site
> >administrator) .[/color]
>
> Perhaps you meant 'you can devide a website into two parts if you want
> to'?[/color]

Having spent some time working in a team which maintained the back-end
transactions while another team dealt with the front-end I am not the only
one who considers the front and back ends to be separate entities. The only
common ground between them is the database in the middle.
[color=blue]
> Overkill, when not required, costs more money, wastes time on the
> upstart and causes headaches later. It's not _ALWAYS_ a good thing to
> over do it at the start.[/color]

It depends on your definition of "over doing". Experience has taught me that
there are two ways of doing a job - properly or not at all. Doing a "proper
job" means having an architecture that will deal with any size of web
application, small or large.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

[Larry Jaques]

Re: PHP site development

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:34:50 +0100, "Tony Marston"
<tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> calmly ranted:
[color=blue]
>"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@datab asix.com> wrote in message[color=green]
>> Overkill, when not required, costs more money, wastes time on the
>> upstart and causes headaches later. It's not _ALWAYS_ a good thing to
>> over do it at the start.[/color]
>
>It depends on your definition of "over doing". Experience has taught me that
>there are two ways of doing a job - properly or not at all. Doing a "proper
>job" means having an architecture that will deal with any size of web
>application, small or large.[/color]

Remember, Tony, that not all of us get the large clients who
give -us- full say in how much the site costs. For the rest of
us, we quote prices for specific goodies, often giving them
one quote for the basics (which 75% of them want) and one quote
for a website with everything on it (including anchovies, which
few want.)

Most sole proprietors and mom & pop shops can't afford all the
bells and whistles at one time, so we offer less complete/less
costly sites to get them started. How can that be "wrong" if we
tell them that the original site programing may have to be scrapped
once they get to a certain performance/demand level, and another
more robust model set in its place? I'm with Gary on this point
because using your model alone, about 80% of all sites would not
be online today. (Hmmm, in some ways that might not be such a bad
thing after all.) ;>


----------------------------------------------
Never attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
=============== =============== =============== ==============

[Tony Marston]

Re: PHP site development


"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress @di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:kmgoe0hbr8 1vmcgofro5l6r20 87j4octtn@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:34:50 +0100, "Tony Marston"
> <tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> calmly ranted:
>[color=green]
> >"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@datab asix.com> wrote in message[color=darkred]
> >> Overkill, when not required, costs more money, wastes time on the
> >> upstart and causes headaches later. It's not _ALWAYS_ a good thing to
> >> over do it at the start.[/color]
> >
> >It depends on your definition of "over doing". Experience has taught me[/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green]
> >there are two ways of doing a job - properly or not at all. Doing a[/color][/color]
"proper[color=blue][color=green]
> >job" means having an architecture that will deal with any size of web
> >application, small or large.[/color]
>
> Remember, Tony, that not all of us get the large clients who
> give -us- full say in how much the site costs. For the rest of
> us, we quote prices for specific goodies, often giving them
> one quote for the basics (which 75% of them want) and one quote
> for a website with everything on it (including anchovies, which
> few want.)[/color]

You are still missing the point about using an architecture like mine. Now
that I have spent time and effort in creating all those reusable components
I do not have to do it again. I can simply take the same framework and use
it as the basis for any new site I work on. That way I do not have to keep
re-inventing the wheel for each site. That is what reusability is all
about - write once and use many times. I have a reusable DML class, a
reusable database table class, reusable XSL stylesheets, reusable
dialog-type scripts and a library of reusable functions. I can use the same
framework on any number of different sites without any regard for the size
of those sites. I do not start on a new site with a blank sheet of paper and
rewrite evrything from scratch - that would be grossly inefficient.

If you care to inspect all the other frameworks that are available, for all
languages not just PHP, you will see that they offer the same sort of
functionality - a set of standardised routine which can be used over and
over again on any number of different applications.
[color=blue]
> Most sole proprietors and mom & pop shops can't afford all the
> bells and whistles at one time,[/color]

My framework can be used to supply simple nuts-and-bolts applications
without all those expensive bells-and whistles and go-faster stripes. I can
develop web applications faster using my framework than you can without any
framework, and fast development times equates to lower costs to the
customer. That is what RAD (Rapid Application Development) is all about.
[color=blue]
> so we offer less complete/less
> costly sites to get them started. How can that be "wrong" if we
> tell them that the original site programing may have to be scrapped
> once they get to a certain performance/demand level, and another
> more robust model set in its place?[/color]

As a customer I would be might pissed off if I was told that my application
could not be enhanced, only rewritten from scratch because it had to use a
different architecture. If a developer cannot create a development framework
that is extensible then he is a pretty poor developer (IMHO).
[color=blue]
> I'm with Gary on this point
> because using your model alone, about 80% of all sites would not
> be online today. (Hmmm, in some ways that might not be such a bad
> thing after all.) ;>[/color]

If each site had to develop my framework from scratch then I would have to
agree. But the whole point is that it has been developed once and does not
need to be developed again, simple reused and reused and reused. That is
where the savings come from.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

[Leythos]

Re: PHP site development

In article <cchnd1$lkp$1$8 30fa795@news.de mon.co.uk>,
tony@NOSPAM.dem on.co.uk says...[color=blue]
> As a customer I would be might pissed off if I was told that my application
> could not be enhanced, only rewritten from scratch because it had to use a
> different architecture. If a developer cannot create a development framework
> that is extensible then he is a pretty poor developer (IMHO).[/color]

I would suggest that your market is narrow, or that you've developed a
framework for what you like to bid on / design around. Having been in
the programming field for 20+ years, I've never seen a framework fit
every customer, and I've seen frameworks applied to projects that could
have been done in less time without the framework.

--
--
spamfree999@rro hio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

[Larry Jaques]

Re: PHP site development

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 21:45:20 +0100, "Tony Marston"
<tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> calmly ranted:

[color=blue]
>You are still missing the point about using an architecture like mine. Now
>that I have spent time and effort in creating all those reusable components
>I do not have to do it again. I can simply take the same framework and use
>it as the basis for any new site I work on. That way I do not have to keep
>re-inventing the wheel for each site. That is what reusability is all
>about - write once and use many times. I have a reusable DML class, a
>reusable database table class, reusable XSL stylesheets, reusable
>dialog-type scripts and a library of reusable functions. I can use the same
>framework on any number of different sites without any regard for the size
>of those sites. I do not start on a new site with a blank sheet of paper and
>rewrite evrything from scratch - that would be grossly inefficient.[/color]

Sure, there are lots of reusable code snippets which can be used
on any given site. I'll finish reading all the info on your site
as it's apparent that I missed some of your points.

[color=blue]
>If you care to inspect all the other frameworks that are available, for all
>languages not just PHP, you will see that they offer the same sort of
>functionalit y - a set of standardised routine which can be used over and
>over again on any number of different applications.
>[color=green]
>> Most sole proprietors and mom & pop shops can't afford all the
>> bells and whistles at one time,[/color]
>
>My framework can be used to supply simple nuts-and-bolts applications
>without all those expensive bells-and whistles and go-faster stripes. I can
>develop web applications faster using my framework than you can without any
>framework, and fast development times equates to lower costs to the
>customer. That is what RAD (Rapid Application Development) is all about.[/color]

I think I see where you're coming from now. You're not charging them
for any previously developed coding, just for the current time spent
utilizing the framework?

[color=blue][color=green]
>> so we offer less complete/less
>> costly sites to get them started. How can that be "wrong" if we
>> tell them that the original site programing may have to be scrapped
>> once they get to a certain performance/demand level, and another
>> more robust model set in its place?[/color]
>
>As a customer I would be might pissed off if I was told that my application
>could not be enhanced, only rewritten from scratch because it had to use a
>different architecture. If a developer cannot create a development framework
>that is extensible then he is a pretty poor developer (IMHO).[/color]

Not if you, the customer, said "Gimme quick 'n dirty, but above
all, give it to me fast and very cheaply." Or don't you get those
people over there? <g>

[color=blue][color=green]
>> I'm with Gary on this point
>> because using your model alone, about 80% of all sites would not
>> be online today. (Hmmm, in some ways that might not be such a bad
>> thing after all.) ;>[/color]
>
>If each site had to develop my framework from scratch then I would have to
>agree. But the whole point is that it has been developed once and does not
>need to be developed again, simple reused and reused and reused. That is
>where the savings come from.[/color]

Gotcha.


----------------------------------------------
Never attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
=============== =============== =============== ==============

[Tony Marston]

Re: PHP site development


"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress @di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:1gtoe09tjv 20pglolvq5l2fih o4a3ror86@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 21:45:20 +0100, "Tony Marston"
> <tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> calmly ranted:
>
>[color=green]
> >You are still missing the point about using an architecture like mine.[/color][/color]
Now[color=blue][color=green]
> >that I have spent time and effort in creating all those reusable[/color][/color]
components[color=blue][color=green]
> >I do not have to do it again. I can simply take the same framework and[/color][/color]
use[color=blue][color=green]
> >it as the basis for any new site I work on. That way I do not have to[/color][/color]
keep[color=blue][color=green]
> >re-inventing the wheel for each site. That is what reusability is all
> >about - write once and use many times. I have a reusable DML class, a
> >reusable database table class, reusable XSL stylesheets, reusable
> >dialog-type scripts and a library of reusable functions. I can use the[/color][/color]
same[color=blue][color=green]
> >framework on any number of different sites without any regard for the[/color][/color]
size[color=blue][color=green]
> >of those sites. I do not start on a new site with a blank sheet of paper[/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green]
> >rewrite evrything from scratch - that would be grossly inefficient.[/color]
>
> Sure, there are lots of reusable code snippets which can be used
> on any given site. I'll finish reading all the info on your site
> as it's apparent that I missed some of your points.
>[color=green]
> >If you care to inspect all the other frameworks that are available, for[/color][/color]
all[color=blue][color=green]
> >languages not just PHP, you will see that they offer the same sort of
> >functionalit y - a set of standardised routine which can be used over and
> >over again on any number of different applications.
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Most sole proprietors and mom & pop shops can't afford all the
> >> bells and whistles at one time,[/color]
> >
> >My framework can be used to supply simple nuts-and-bolts applications
> >without all those expensive bells-and whistles and go-faster stripes. I[/color][/color]
can[color=blue][color=green]
> >develop web applications faster using my framework than you can without[/color][/color]
any[color=blue][color=green]
> >framework, and fast development times equates to lower costs to the
> >customer. That is what RAD (Rapid Application Development) is all about.[/color]
>
> I think I see where you're coming from now. You're not charging them
> for any previously developed coding, just for the current time spent
> utilizing the framework?[/color]

Now you're geting there. Because I can make use of a large amount of
pre-written code I can develop new applications faster than competitors who
do not have any reusable code. Undercutting competitors while still being
able to produce high quality software is the way to impress paying
customers.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> so we offer less complete/less
> >> costly sites to get them started. How can that be "wrong" if we
> >> tell them that the original site programing may have to be scrapped
> >> once they get to a certain performance/demand level, and another
> >> more robust model set in its place?[/color]
> >
> >As a customer I would be might pissed off if I was told that my[/color][/color]
application[color=blue][color=green]
> >could not be enhanced, only rewritten from scratch because it had to use[/color][/color]
a[color=blue][color=green]
> >different architecture. If a developer cannot create a development[/color][/color]
framework[color=blue][color=green]
> >that is extensible then he is a pretty poor developer (IMHO).[/color]
>
> Not if you, the customer, said "Gimme quick 'n dirty, but above
> all, give it to me fast and very cheaply." Or don't you get those
> people over there? <g>[/color]

I can build web applications faster by usng my framework than by not using
my framework. If I want to perform a specific function then it is far more
efficient to use code that is pre-written than to write it all over again.
The fact that my framework contains options and capabilities that may exceed
a customer's present requirements is irrelevant. It would cost too much to
identify and extract those unwanted options, so I leave them in. There is
always the chance that the customer may want to take advantage of one of
those options at a later date, and I would not want to go through the hassle
of re-inserting the missing code.

I have worked for software houses for over 20 years, and the trick to
writing one application after another is to develop a reusable and
extensible framework, then reuse it for each new application. It is simply
not cost effective to develop a new framwork for each application.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> I'm with Gary on this point
> >> because using your model alone, about 80% of all sites would not
> >> be online today. (Hmmm, in some ways that might not be such a bad
> >> thing after all.) ;>[/color]
> >
> >If each site had to develop my framework from scratch then I would have[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> >agree. But the whole point is that it has been developed once and does[/color][/color]
not[color=blue][color=green]
> >need to be developed again, simply reused and reused and reused. That is
> >where the savings come from.[/color]
>
> Gotcha.[/color]

The penny has dropped at last.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net