I have 2 projects accessing the same DB. One is with CodeIgniter, the other is a home made mvc framework. I'd like to use the same Model layer.
Is it possible to access Codeigniter Models from another project?
I'm not exactly sure why you would want to be accessing the same DB from two different frameworks at the same time (sounds like a recipe for disaster), but in general, I would say, "no."
What you actually want is not the model itself, You actually want the active records class located in /system/database/DB_active_rec, as that's the most common usage.
That class extends CI_DB_driver
This class accepts the config parameter for the DB(connection information).
You then want to extract the drivers themselves being used for the specific database you're working, the drivers can found at /system/database/drivers.
CI->model simply loads the DB_active_rec, that's why you need to do $this->db->insert()
I've never did so myself, But I don't see any major dependencies in the files themselves. I might have missed something though
Related
As far as I know, currently Yii 2 doesn't have an out of the box method to resolve ambiguity of controller and module names. An example of module hierarchy to describe what exactly I mean:
app\modules\v1\controllers\UserController // resolves the /v1/users and /v1/users/{id} actions
app\modules\v1\modules\user\Module.php // nested module, resolves the /v1/user/... controllers and their actions, e.g. /v1/user/something/{id}
In this case, the UserController conflicts with the user Module. The main reason of the ambiguity is the singular-plural magic of Yii 2 framework. I didn't find an appropriate solution to resolve this ambiguity. Further my ideas how to resolve it.
Rename the module.
Rename the UserController to the UsersController.
Create an additional submodule, and place there the UserController. E.g. app\modules\v1\modules\root\controllers\UserController
I'm not sure that at least one of these options is a quite elegant one and a proper solution in view of the Yii 2 philosophy.
Coming back to the main question, what is a more appropriate approach to resolve this issue by the Yii 2 philosophy? Controller and Module is two different types of objects, which is differently pluralized or not, thus should be right way to separate them in the routing for the described case.
How I usually deal with this depends a bit on how I'm structuring things.
Let's say I have users, departments, orders and maybe some other stuff. All these concepts have their own module in which all interactions take place. If I want to create REST controllers for all these concepts I can choose to add a controller to every module or I can create a dedicated API module for the controllers.
When creating a dedicated module for this purpose I usually name it api, maybe with some nested versioning module(s) inside. So in this situation I would get the following structure app\modules\api\controllers\UserController which would result in the URL /api/user. No ambiguity there and pretty clear what this is meant for.
When adding such a controller to the module itself I choose a better name than just 'UserController'. When asking myself the question 'What does this controller accomplish?/What does it do?' I find that just UserController doesn't cut it; Especially when inside a User module, resulting in /user/user. This controller is probably going to exist alongside one or more different controllers in the User module, all meant for something different. So, usually, I end up naming it just ApiController, resulting in /user/api. Another controller could be the ProfileController. So when looking at the URLs it's pretty clear what /user/api and /user/profile do. Without the ambiguity.
I am not sure I can fully understand the question, but probably you're asking about classname aliases?
use My\Full\Classname as Another;
I'm trying to understand the MVC pattern in Phalcon.
In my current application I only need ONE template file for each table. The template contains the datagrid, the SQL statement for the SELECT, the form, add/edit/delete-buttons, a search box and all things necessary to interact with the database, like connection information (of course using includes as much as possible to prevent duplicate code). (I wrote my own complex framework, which converts xml-templates into a complete HTML-page, including all generated Javascript-code and CSS, without any PHP needed for the business logic. Instead of having specific PHP classes for each table in the database, I only use standard operation-scripts and database-classes that can do everything). I'm trying to comply more with web standards though, so I'm investigating alternatives.
I tried the INVO example of Phalcon and noticed that the Companies-page needs a Companies model, a CompaniesController, a CompaniesForm and 4 different views. To me, compared to my single file template now, having so many different files is too confusing.
I agree that separating the presentation from the business logic makes sense, but I can't really understand why the model and controller need to be in separate classes. This only seems to make things more complicated. And it seems many people already are having trouble deciding what should be in the model and what should be in the controller anyway. For example validation sometimes is put in the model if it requires business logic, but otherwise in the controller, which seems quite complex.
I work in a small team only, so 'separation of concerns' (apart from the presentation and business logic) is not really the most important thing for us.
If I decide not to use separate model and controller classes,
what problems could I expect?
Phalcon's Phalcon\Mvc\Model class, which your models are supposed to extend, is designed to provide an object-oriented way of interacting with the database. For example, if your table is Shopping_Cart then you'd name your class ShoppingCart. If your table has a column "id" then you'd define a property in your class public $id;.
Phalcon also gives you methods like initialize() and beforeValidationOnCreate(). I will admit these methods can be very confusing regarding how they work and when they're ran and why you'd ever want to call it in the first place.
The initialize() is quite self-explanatory and is called whenever your class is initiated. Here you can do things like setSource if your table is named differently than your class or call methods like belongsTo and hasMany to define its relationship with other tables.
Relationship are useful since it makes it easy to do something like search for a product in a user's cart, then using the id, you'd get a reference to the Accounts table and finally grab the username of the seller of the item in the buyer's cart.
I mean, sure, you could do separate queries for this kind of stuff, but if you define the table relationships in the very beginning, why not?
In terms of what's the point of defining a dedicated model for each table in the database, you can define your own custom methods for managing the model. For example you might want to define a public function updateItemsInCart($productId,$quantity) method in your ShoppingCart class. Then the idea is whenever you need to interact with the ShoppingCart, you simply call this method and let the Model worry about the business logic. This is instead of writing some complex update query which would also work.
Yes, you can put this kind of stuff in your controller. But there's also a DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle. The purpose of MVC is separation of concerns. So why follow MVC in the first place if you don't want a dedicated Models section? Well, perhaps you don't need one. Not every application requires a model. For example this code doesn't use any: https://github.com/phalcon/blog
Personally, after using Phalcon's Model structure for a while, I've started disliking their 1-tier approach to Models. I prefer multi-tier models more in the direction of entities, services, and repositories. You can find such code over here:
https://github.com/phalcon/mvc/tree/master/multiple-service-layer-model/apps/models
But such can become overkill very quickly and hard to manage due to using too much abstraction. A solution somewhere between the two is usually feasible.
But honestly, there's nothing wrong with using Phalcon's built-in database adapter for your queries. If you come across a query very difficult to write, nobody said that every one of your models needs to extend Phalcon\Mvc\Model. It's still perfectly sound logic to write something like:
$pdo = \Phalcon\DI::getDefault()->getDb()->prepare($sql);
foreach($params as $key => &$val)
{
$pdo->bindParam($key,$val);
}
$pdo->setFetchMode(PDO::FETCH_OBJ);
$pdo->execute();
$results=$pdo->fetchAll();
The models are very flexible, there's no "best" way to arrange them. The "whatever works" approach is fine. As well as the "I want my models to have a method for each operation I could possibly ever want".
I will admit that the invo and vokuro half-functional examples (built for demo purposes only) aren't so great for picking up good model designing habits. I'd advise finding a piece of software which is actually used in a serious manner, like the code for the forums: https://github.com/phalcon/forum/tree/master/app/models
Phalcon is still rather new of a framework to find good role models out there.
As you mention, regarding having all the models in one file, this is perfectly fine. Do note, as mentioned before, using setSource within initialize, you can name your classes differently than the table they're working on. You can also take advantage of namespaces and have the classes match the table names. You can take this a step further and create a single class for creating all your tables dynamically using setSource. That's assuming you want to use Phalcon's database adapter. There's nothing wrong with writing your own code on top of PDO or using another framework's database adapter out there.
As you say, separation of concerns isn't so important to you on a small team, so you can get away without a models directory. If it's any help, you could use something like what I wrote for your database adapter: http://pastie.org/10631358
then you'd toss that in your app/library directory. Load the component in your config like so:
$di->set('easySQL', function(){
return new EasySQL();
});
Then in your Basemodel you'd put:
public function easyQuery($sql,$params=array())
{
return $this->di->getEasySQL()->prepare($sql,$params)->execute()->fetchAll();
}
Finally, from a model, you can do something as simple as:
$this->easyQuery($sqlString,array(':id'=>$id));
Or define the function globally so your controllers can also use it, etc.
There's other ways to do it. Hopefully my "EasySQL" component brings you closer to your goal. Depending on your needs, maybe my "EasySQL" component is just the long way of writing:
$query = new \Phalcon\Mvc\Model\Query($sql, $di);
$matches=$query->execute($params);
If not, perhaps you're looking for something more in the direction of
$matches=MyModel::query()->where(...)->orderBy(...)->limit(...)->execute();
Which is perfectly fine.
Model, View and Controller were designed to separate each process.
Not just Phalcon uses this kind of approach, almost PHP Frameworks today uses that approach.
The Model should be the place where you're saving or updating things, it should not rely on other components but the database table itself (ONLY!), and you're just passing some boolean(if CRUD is done) or a database record query.
You could do that using your Controller, however if you'll be creating multiple controllers and you're doing the same process, it is much better to use 1 function from your model to call and to pass-in your data.
Also, Controllers supposed to be the script in the middle, it should be the one to dispatch every request, when saving records, when you need to use Model, if you need things to queue, you need to call some events, and lastly to respond using json response or showing your template adapter (volt).
We've shorten the word M-V-C, but in reality, we're processing these:
HTTP Request -> Services Loaded (including error handlers) -> The Router -> (Route Parser) -> (Dispatch to specified Controller) -> The Controller -> (Respond using JSON or Template Adapter | Call a Model | Call ACL | Call Event | Queue | API Request | etc....) -> end.
I am new to Symfony2 and I am not sure where I should save a class that updated multiple tables(entities).
From reading documentation and tutorials it says I should not put any other tables reference within the entity class; I could put it within the controller class, but again many people have said this class should be as simple as possible and not include business logic; Not in repositories, because these are used for query data and not for update or inserting.
Is there a standard folder structure where another type of class for working with multiple entities(tables) should be saved? Should the business logic really be stored in the controller classes?
Symfony2 is very flexible in this regard.
You're right, entities are for one "table" only.
I would suggest you look into Services, as they are a good way to move your code from a controller to a separate class. You basically call your service and use the functions it provides. This will slim your controller down.
What I have is the following db structure(tables):
lists[name,id]
list_items[title,list_id,content]
I've created the needed files and code(the MVC) needed to manage the first table(lists).
I also added the hasMany to the model class. At that point I am stuck.
What I need is a solution for managing each item (basic CRUD, I assume that complex management is just an advanced CRUD that I will find out how to do by myself).
I will be specific: since it's a content that have no place (but the admin) that it will be used by itself, should I -
create a full mvc structure for it? (can or should I implement it somehow[how?] in the lists package?
if not, how can I attach the tables? (since the use is about to be dropped in version 2)
would an element(cake concept/context) will be the appropriate way to create a view for such situation?
ANY insight will be appreciated.
If I undertant correctly, you want to create a CRUD part of this tables by yourself, without bake.
You need to write all the MVC estrucure and be carefull with the naming combention of cakephp http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2006/02/18/cakephp-conventions/
You need the model into app/models and also a a controller into app/controllers (remember naming combentions) and for each model you need a folder into /app/views.
Alfo, every, every function in your controller needs a view, even if this action doesn´t write anything to screen
I hope this was usefull.
Have you tried using Cake's bake feature? Your CRUD will be automatically created in about 2 seconds. I would also recommend you do the Blog tutorial to get a feel for scaffolding.
CakePHP is all about convention over configuration. Eg naming conventions for tables, controllers, models etc.. So much can be done automagically.
straight to the point :
I am using Kohana, and I am looking at another script written in plain PHP. In the script, I have a class ShoppingCart. If I am to convert the script to Kohana, where am I to put the class, its methods and its properties?
Is it in my existing default controller? Or should I put it in a separate controller? Or as noobie as it may sound, will I put it in the model?
That depends on the specifics of the class I suppose. To be honest I don't know anything about Kohana, but there's probably a place for "vendor files" somewhere. Maybe it's best to place it there and write wrapper functions for it in your controller. If the class already integrates well with Kohana you may instead choose to use it as a controller or model directly. Or you might want to take the time to rewrite it to make it work as a controller...
Only you can evaluate the best place for it, there's no hard and fast rule here.
Kohana has a folder for 3rd party libraries. The main one is under system/vendor, you can put it in you application/ as well.
Many PHP class loaders require details like your filename should be the same as the class name (at least that's what I read in the Kohana documentation) if you want the classes to be automatically loaded.
If you need to use 3rd party code in your app it's recommended that you create a folder in your app / module folder called 'vendor' and place all of that code there.
You can then include the files by calling:
include kohana::find_file('vendor', 'filename');
If needs be you can also create a wrapper for the external library, a good example of this is the email helper which uses the 3rd party Swift email library.
If you're porting your own class to kohana then you need to work out what the class will be doing and categorise it accordingly.
If the class will be fetching items from some kind of database then you should make it a model. Libraries are usually sets of code that you want reuse across controllers / models, such as authentication, calendar generation etc. Controllers are used for passing data from models to your views / libraries.
See the docs for more info
As per kohana convention, you should place custom classes in application/libraries folder. However for this, you need to know how to get the class to work after putting it there. If you can't figure that out, you can do anything like putting it in your controller or making another controller of it, etc.