I'm just new to Kohana and its cascading file system.
From what I understand, using the cascading file system allows extending of core classes and making your module use the subclass in place of the original core class (kind of like monkey patching). What I don't quite understand is why we need to create blank sub classes and put all the logic on Kohana classes. It just seems like a hack and the duplicate classes makes it very hard to trace the calls.
Based from this doc on cascading file system, it will always check for application path first before modules, so is it possible to just completely overwrite the core classes with new versions on the application path? I'm not sure where the blank classes fit in here. An actual concrete example would help, thanks.
I've never really understood the need for the empty classes extending the core Kohana ones either, so you're not alone.
I have often created classes with the same names as the empty ones in order to overwrite them completely. This would be done in either the modules or the application folders.
Kohana compiles the files in this order: system -> modules -> application...so if you were to create a class with the same name within the application directory, it would overwrite any class with the same name in system or modules.
I often create re-usable classes within my own modules and then overwrite certain methods within other modules if I need them to behave slightly differently. You can specify the order that the modules load in by changing your bootstrap.php file in the application directory.
Pretty much the only reason I'm still using Kohana is because of the Hierarchical MVC (HMVC) capabilities, for which I can't seem to find equivalent functionality in any of the other frameworks. It is massively powerful and flexible, especially for large projects.
However, if you are only just getting in to Kohana you may want to reconsider, as it does seem to be a dying framework - the devs seem to have lost interest, which is a real shame because it has so much potential. It is a stable enough framework as it stands though.
Hope this helps you.
Related
So I have the following dilemma. I want to have a common library that all my ZF2 applications will use. This library will contain all the business logic for my website. Each application will consume different parts of the library to properly display/perform whatever actions are necessary. Now so far I've managed to create a library. Lets call it Foo. Foo has a Module.php which does the basic autoloading required to load the entire library.
Now here is where I start to have problems. I want to take advantage of dependency injection, the service manager, etc from ZF2 inside Foo. The problem is I only have the one Module.php that loads Foo. This means as my library grows so will Module.php since as far as I can tell I can't have sub modules. Is there any way around this issue?
Essentially I want every app to just include Foo and Foo to have several Module.php so that at least the dependency stuff can be handled on a module by module basis.
You're probably swimming against the current to try and do sub-modules -- and you probably don't need to.
If you've written your module nicely, loading it won't be a very expensive operation. Remember, the whole point of the service manager is that all those services are lazily created. So if the calling code never asks for a particular service in a particular request, that service's classfile is never autoloaded, the object is never instantiated, etc. So you may be fine staying with a big, monolithic, module.
The one place that things might get a little tricky is if you're leaning heavily on the EventManager, and your module is attaching a bunch listeners. But you can probably get around that by setting up some module configuration directives, and then just conditionally attach listeners.
Having said that, it probably makes sense to try to split your module up. So you could have FooBar and FooBaz modules.
If you really, really, want sub-modules, you can dig into the ModuleManager and try to figure it out. I went a little ways down that road once -- and then got distracted. In my case, I was dealing with shipping physical items. I wanted a "Fulfillment" module that could be configured to load a bunch of similar shipping modules (Fulfillment\Courier\USPSModule, Fulfillment\Courier\FedExModule, etc), so that my main Fulfillment module could iterate over all loaded submodules, without specific knowledge about any of them. If I recall correctly, the best way to do it was to essentially mirror what ZF2 does, but inside my Fulfillment\Module class. However, I can't think of many situations where you'd want to do that, unless you want a set of similar submodules that all implement the same interface, and want them to be consumed by a super-module that has no specific knowledge of them. I also looked at this because was thinking about runtime enabling/disabling of those submodules by end-users (sort of like a plugin system).
If you're not doing that, I'd say stick to FooBarModule, FooBazModule, etc, so far as it makes sense. And remember even if your module contains a ton of code, the ServiceManager will only autoload, parse, and instantiate classes that are needed to satisfy the dependencies of any given request.
I'm starting to familiarize myself with using the module-based architecture for zend framework projects. My real reason behind being interested in the module architecture is to be able to take a module from one project and just drop it into another project. Maybe I'm not getting it right..
But what I'm noticing right off the bat is that controllers within each module cannot have the same name as any other controller in the main application (or in any other module, though I haven't tested this). This leads me to think that modules are not really independent self-contained units, so I wonder how this affects their ease of distribution from one project to another.
The other issue is what if I were to take a module and drop it into another project. Do I have to update the .zfproject.xml manually? and wouldn't that be a bit too cumbersome to be done manually?
Maybe I'm not clear on how modules should be used in zend, so I'd like to know when you decide it's best to use them, and when do you decide not to use them, or do you use them all the time, or do you never use them?
I always used module based architecture so far in my projects, because I like to separate concepts. For example I have always an ADMIN module whose classes and controllers dont mix with the rest of the application. Using modules you can reuse modules for other applications, for example if you create a BLOG module.
The names of your controllers will be something like Admin_IndexController for the admin module even if the file is named IndexController.php.
Another concept that is nice and help you reuse resources is the plugins. Use them for authentication or to check validity of the requests.
You need to setup namespaces for your modules so that they are easily moved into a new project without renaming.
If you are using Zend Tool then you will have to edit the zfproject.xml. I haven't spent a lot of time using this so I'm not sure if there is another way without manually editing.
I have way too many modules in my application. Currently my modules are namespaced, but what I'd like to do is have a directory structure so I can get rid of this redundant and annoying namespacing.
For instance, for modules named "xModule1, xModule2, xModule3", I'd like to have a directory structure like this:
-x
-module1
-actions and templates
-module2
-actions and templates
-module3
- actions and templates
Surely the developers at symfony know that people would like to use their framework to develop large applications. So how is module organization like this done?
I've done a lot of work in Java/Spring, and because source is component scanned, you can arrange your controllers and jsp files in nicely organized hierarchies. Is this somehow possible with Symfony?
No, this is not possible with Symfony. The structure of your modules and their actions and templates is expected in a fixed file system layout and I haven't heard anything about that changing.
I've run into the same problem you're facing where a very large site ended up with 30+ modules in a single application. At first it seemed cumbersome but after dealing with it for a while I found that the single location to search for a specific module was in fact beneficial instead of having to guess through sub-structures until I got what I was after. Seeing that structure grow and grow also pushes me to respect adding new modules only when it's absolutely necessary, folding new functionality into existing modules and refactoring existing modules to work with new enhancements whenever possible.
Symfony does have auto-loading features that will work for your library folders however, allowing you to have lib/one/two/three/Object.class.php or any other structure you see fit.
If you have so many modules, you could consider to move some functionality into plugins (i.e. create your own plugins).
The benefit is that you can use this functionality also in other projects.
Or you can group your modules into applications. You can have as many applications as you want, not only backend and frontend.
I've wondered about the same thing, especially as many configuration files need to be set either at application level or individual module level. It could useful to be able to cascade configurations to a set of modules.
As mentioned above, it seems the available solutions are:
deal with lots of modules
create separate applications (which will create some wieldy duplication)
refactor your modules to be as efficient as practical (i.e. multiple controllers & views per module)
What is the best way to integrate an external script into the Zend Framework? Let me explain because I may be asking this the wrong way. I have a script that downloads and parses an XML file. This script, which runs as a daily cron job, needs to dump its data into the database.
I am using Zend Framework for the site which uses this script and it seems to me that it would be best to use my subclassed model of Zend_Db_Abstract to do the adding and updating of the database. How does one go about doing this? Does my script go in the library next to the Zend Components (i.e. library/Mine/Xmlparse.php) and thus have access to the various ZF components? Do I simply need to include the correct model files and the Zend DB component in the file itself? What is the best way to handle this sort of integration?
Yes, you should put your own classes that maybe inherit Zend Framework classes or add further classes into your own folder next to the Zend Framework folder in library.
When you have Zend_Loader s auto-loading enabled, the class names will automatically map to the class you created, e.g.:
My_Db_Abstract will map to My/Db/Abstract.php .
In your library directory you should have your own library next to the Zend library folder. Whatever you call it (Mylib, Project, ...) you should include it into the Zend Autoloader and that's done as follows:
require_once 'Zend/Loader/Autoloader.php';
$loader = Zend_Loader_Autoloader::getInstance();
$loader->registerNamespace('Project_');
$loader->setFallbackAutoloader(true);
if ($configSection == 'development')
{
$loader->suppressNotFoundWarnings(false);
}
In order for you library to integrate nicely with ZF and the Autoloader you should stick to the ZF naming conventions. This means two things:
if you extend an existing ZF class, replicate the ZF folder structure so that your file has the same path and name except for the library name. E.g. /library/Zend/Db/Abstract.php => /library/Project/Db/Abstract.php.
if you write your own classes, still stick to the ZF naming conventions for the autoloader to find them.
I just came across something that may be germane to this question. This IBM developerWorks article.
The author recommends simply creating a scripts folder in the ZF hierarchy and the using it as one normally would within ZF (though he does set the ini path and call autoload). Is it that simple? Does simply being in the hierarchy of the framework and including the path and autoloader grant your script access to all of the goodies?
I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to ask but I will try to help. If at any point you add a reference to "/path/to/zend/framework" into your php include path then you have in essence enabled the Zend Framework. From there if you do:
require_once('Zend/Loader.php');
Zend_Loader::registerAutoload();
Then at any point in your script you can pretty much just create new Zend Framework objects and Zend_Loader will handle the rest.
One of the big things about the Zend Framework though is not forcing you to do things a certain way. That's why sometimes there are several ways to accomplish the same thing. So, if you feel you need to make your script use the Zend Framework just for the sake of doing so this is not really necessary. But if you think it may improve your script in some way then go for it.
I usually put custom stuff that I think could be used across projects in a custom folder in the library. So I have a library/Ak33m folder that has scripts that may be outside of the framework.
As a ZF noob myself, I think I understand some of what the OP is trying to figure out. So, I'll just explain a bit of what I understand in the hope that it is helpful either to the OP (or more likely, to a future reader, since the original question is so old and I imagine that OP is now a ZF guru).
I understand that ZF claims to be largely "use at will", so that you need no buy into an entire structure, like the Zend_Application, the Zend_Bootstrap class, the entire MVC approach, etc.
Further, I understand conventions for class naming and file locations that enable easy autoloading. Ex: class App_Model_User resides in a folder App/Model/User.php
I think what can be potentially confusing is that in the script context, where you have not yet
done the .htaccess magic that pushes all request to public/index.php
set your APPLICATION_PATH and include paths in public/index.php
created your Application or Bootstrap object tied to a config file
it can be a little bit unclear how best to avail yourself of most of the ZF goodness we get in that context and want in another context.
I guess my answer to the original question would be that the usual entry point sequence of
http request -> .htaccess -> index.php -> config
sets up much of our environment for us, we would need to duplicate some of that for different entry path.
So, for your script, my first instinct would be to create a common include file that mirrors much of what happens in index.php - set the include paths, the APPLICATION_PATH, instantiates and calls a bootstrap, and then does your script-specific processing.
Even better, it might be desirable to create a single entry point for all your scripts, like we do in the http/web context. Extend Zend_Application for your own script purposes so that $application->run(); no longer starts up the MVC router-controller-dispatch processing, but rather does your own stuff. In that way, this single script entry point would look almost identical to the web entry point, the only difference being which application object gets instantiated. Then pass the name of your desired Application class as a command line parameter to the script.
But here I confess to being less confident and just throwing out ideas.
Hope all this helps someone. It actually helped me to write it all down. Thanks and cheers!
Update 2009-09-29: Just ran across this article: Using Zend Framework from the Command Line
Update 2009-11-20: And another article: Cron jobs in Zend Framework | GS Design
Update 2010-02-25: Easy command line scripts with Zend Application - David Caunt
I've been looking for a good PHP ORM tool to use, and I recently found a good ORM class in Kohana. It has a fairly good and simple ORM implementation. The problem is, the code is unreusable outside of the Kohana framework without a rewrite/refactor. It relies on the Kohana class loader and various framework loading strategies to even work in the first place. Further, the required classes aren't packaged into a single dependency directory, or even multiple directories.
When I do this rewrite, I intend to republish the code via sourceforge or something, and those guys can of course reuse it if they want. So, should I just package the fileset needed into one directory, and make the appropriate classes do a require_once on any dependant classes, and 2 should I stick with the original class names that are project dependent (like Kohana_exception) even though it is pretty much unrelated to the Kohana project as a whole?
A second option would be to write another classloader that is a simplified version of the Kohana Framework classloader, and only cares about the ORM related stuff...
If you think what you are doing will be a marked improvement to the Kohana project you should make your changes and submit a patch to be considered by the project's maintainers. You probably aren't the first person to appreciate a part of their framework and component-izing their framework into smaller bits may be something you could help encourage by submitting a patch (though that will require much more time on your part to engineer).
It sounds like you are extracting a piece of their framework for independent use so it doesn't sound like you're forking at all, though I can imagine removing all of those dependencies may sure seem like a fork.