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.
Related
Let's say I want to create a Blog in Symfony which lives in BlogBundle. But this BlogBundle has dependencies on other bundles like FOSUserBundle, KnpPaginator bundle, FMBbCodeBundle or whatever I end up using. Does this mean I can't really reuse the BlogBundle in another project. The Best Practices for Reusable Bundles chapter of the symfony cookbook says
A bundle must not embed third-party PHP libraries. It should rely on the standard Symfony autoloading instead.
But what does that mean exactly? Can't I use anything that isn't programmed by me?
If that is the case, I'd have to reinvent the wheel for the most basic problems I encounter in developing my bundle. For example I would have to come up with my own paginator to paginate content, create my own user manager and so on..
I don't see a point in that as I would waste my time fixing problems that have already been done much better than I could do.
Or does the cookbook mean I can't use anything that doesn't live inside a bundle. This would make much more sense to me.
It really irritates me that nobody really has done a blogbundle or something similar that gets good feedback and is mentioned anywhere in the top lists. I know, Symfony isn't meant to have a solution that just works out of the box and some coding is necessary, but still. All the bundles I can find that seem to be very popular are the ones that do something like parse BB Code, take care of User Management and other things that are hard and tedious to do, but never something bigger than doing only one task.
I hope you understand what I mean and can help me with my problem. Thanks in advance!
A bundle must not embed third-party PHP libraries. It should rely on
the standard Symfony autoloading instead.
This means that you shouldn't copy code of other libraries to your Bundle (directory). Instead that you should add them as a dependencies to your composer.json.
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.
I am looking for a (small) library that helps me cleanly implement a front controller for my pet project and dispatches requests to single controller classes. The front controller/dispatcher and controller classes need to be fully unittestable without sending HTTP requests.
Requirements
PSR-0 compatible
installable via its own PEAR channel
support for unit testing:
checking if the correct HTTP headers are sent
catches output to allow inspection in unit tests
perferably PHPUnit helper methods to help inspecting the output (for different output types, i.e. HTML, XML, JSON)
allows setting of incoming HTTP headers, GET and POST parameters and cookies without actually doing HTTP requests
needs to be usable standalone - without the db abstraction, templating and so that the fat frameworks all provide
Background
SemanticScuttle, the application that is bound to get proper "C" support, is an existing, working application. The library needs to blend in it and needs to work with the existing structure and classes. I won't rewrite it to match a framework's specific required directory layout.
The application already has unittests, but based on HTTP requests which make them slow. Also, the current old way of having several dozens of .php files in the www directory isn't the most managable solution, which is why proper controller classes need to be introduced. All in all, there will be about 20-30 controllers.
Previous experience
In general, I was pretty happy with Zend Framework for some previous projects but it has several drawbacks:
not pear-installable, so I cannot use it as dependency in my pear-installble applications
only available as one fat download, so I manually need to extract the required bits from it - for each single ZF update.
while unit test support exists for ZF controllers, it's lacking some advanced utility functionality like assertions for json, HTTP status code and content type checks.
While these points seem to be nit-picking, they are important for me. If I have to implement them myself, I do not need to use an external libary but write my own.
What I don't want
StackOverflow has a million "what's the best PHP framework" questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but I'm not looking for those but for a specific library that helps with controllers. If it's part of a modular framework, fine.
I also know the PHP framework comparison website, but it doesn't help answer my question since my requirements are not listed there.
And I know that I can build this all on my own and invent another microframework. But why? There are so many of them already, and one just has to have all that I need.
Related questions
What's your 'no framework' PHP framework?
How do you convert a page-based PHP application to MVC?
Knowing Symfony2 well, I can assure you it's definitely possible to use it just for the "C" in MVC. The models and templates are completely free and are typically executed from the Controllers anyway, so if you don't call Doctrine or Twig specifically, you can do what you want.
As for functional testing, which is really what you're talking about in your article, what you want to look at is the WebTestCase class, which is well complemented by the LiipFunctionalTestBundle bundle for more advanced cases.
That allows for some things like this example of testing a contact form that sends an email, where the entire HTTP request is done in process, since the framework is written to allow multiple requests per process and has no global state, this works very well and does not require a http server to be running or anything. As you can see I do assertions on the HTTP status code of the response too, and was able to capture the email without sending it since in test configuration sending of emails is disabled in the standard distro of Symfony2.
That being said, you could also just use the Request and Response classes from Symfony2's HttpFoundation component. It should allow you to test your code, but IMO you wouldn't get as many nice features as you could if you'd use the entire framework. Of course that's just my biased opinion ;)
I would recommend downloading the Symfony 2 framework Routing component: https://github.com/symfony/Routing
Documentation is found here: http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/routing.html
Perhaps it does not satisfy all you requirements, but it's the closest.
If you are familiar with symfony (which I think you are) you should check out silex From their website this is what they say about it:
A microframework provides the guts for building simple single-file apps. Silex aims to be:
Concise: Silex exposes an intuitive
and concise API that is fun to use.
Extensible: Silex has an extension
system based around the Pimple micro
service-container that makes it even
easier to tie in third party
libraries.
Testable: Silex uses
Symfony2's HttpKernel which abstracts
request and response. This makes it
very easy to test apps and the
framework itself. It also respects
the HTTP specification and encourages
its proper use.
I'd add Net_URL_Mapper, it doesn't have the assertions though. Is that why you ruled it out?
Another pretty interesting thing is silex. It also comes with controller tests. I'd use that over Symfony2. But that's my personal preference.
Quite a understandable wishlist. I think we all hate it in testing when we run into dependencies that make testing to havoc. Tests should be simple and short, having many things to solve before and after running each test can be a burden.
From the description of your question it looks like that you pretty specifically know what you're looking for.
My first reaction would be that you use PHPUnit for this. It does not qualify all your requirements, but it's a base you can build on. It's highly expendable and flexible, however it does not support PSR-0 but has an autoloader of it's own so probably that does not weight that hard.
From the information you give in your question I'm not sure if the design of your testsuite(s) or the design of your application are hindering in writing and performing the tests you would love to.
I smell sort of probably both. If your application code is not easily testable, then there is not much a testing framework like PHPUnit can do about. So for example, if your controllers do not use a request object with an interface, it's not so easy to inject some request that was not triggered by the HTTP request, but by your tests. As HTTP is most often the entry-point into a webapplication, it pays to abstract here for tests. There exist some suggestions apart from specific frameworks: Fig/Http. However this is just a pointer.
Similar is this with the database scenario you give: If your application code is depending on the database, then your tests will be as well. If you don't want to test against your database all the time, you need to have your controllers being able to work w/o the concrete database. This is comparable with the HTTP requests.
There exists numerous approaches to cope with these circumstances, but as I read you question you don't look uneducated, but it's more you're looking for a better solution than exisiting ones.
As with every own code, it's pretty hard to find something that matches the own design. The best suggestion I can give is to extend PHPUnit to add those suites and constraints you need to for your application while you use the support of automated tests to refactor your application to fit the needs of how you would like to test.
So you can start with the tests and then develop the controller like you need it. This will keep your controller light I assume and help you to find the solutions you need.
If you find something that is missing with PHPUnit, you can first extend it on your own and additionally the author is very helpful in adding missing features.
Keep in mind that if there does not exist what you need, you need to code it your own. However if you're able to share (part) of the work with others, you most often get a benefit than by doing everything alone. That's a point for an existing framework, be it for testing or the application.
So if as of yet there is no such controller / MVC that does support easy unit-testing out of the box that fits your needs, chime in and develop one TDD-wise. If done right it can exactly match your requirements. However I think you're not alone with this problem. So not a very concrete answer, but I can only say that I made very good experiences with PHPUnit and it's extendability. That includes output tests you're mentioning in your question.
And probably a little differentiation at the end: It's one thing to test code-units and another to test if they all work in concert in the application with it's various requests. The last most often requires larger test setups by nature. However, if you can separate units from each other and clearly define with which other units they interact, then you normally only need to test the interaction between those which can reduce the setup. This does not save you from infrastructure problems, but those are normally not tested with unit-tests anyway (albeit you can extend PHPUnit to perform other type of checks).
A popular framework - even with a bad design - has the big plus that components tend to be better tested by use. That normally helps to go over the first years of your application until design issues in a framework make you need to rewrite your whole code base (probably).
As controllers often are sort in the middle of everything, this can lead to the scenario that you tend to test the whole application while you only want to test the controller(s). So you should think about the design and role of the controllers and their place within the overall application, what you really want to test with your controllers, so you can really make them testable according to your needs. If you don't need to test the database, you don't need to test the models. So you could mock a model returning random data to take it to the extreme. But if you want to test if HTTP handling is right, then probably a unit that abstracts HTTP handling is needed at first. Each controller relying on this would not be needed to test (theoretically) as the HTTP processing has been tested already. It's a question of the level of abstraction as well. There is no overall solution, it's only that frameworks can offer something but you're then bound to those paradigms the framework expects. AFAIK testing in php is getting more and more popular but that doesn't mean that the existing frameworks have good support for it. I know from the zend framework that they are working on this to improve the situation since longer. So it's probably worth to look into the more recent developments in the more popular frameworks to what this leads to as well.
And for the very specifics, you need to test on your own always.
Opting to PHPUnit and own testcases however does look as a practically way to me. Code your controllers as you need them for your project in TDD and you should get what you need.
Probably the more component based approach of Symfony 2 is better fitting your needs than what you experienced with Zend Framework. However, I can not suggest you anything specific as needs highly differ within application design. What's a quick and solid solution for one application is a burden for the other. See Page Controller.
You could take a look at the http://ezcomponents.org/ witch is becoming apache zeta
There are three ways how to make eZ components available for your PHP environment, please read the whole of this article before continuing with the practical part:
Use PEAR Installer for convenient installation via command line
Download eZ components packaged in an archive
Get the latest sources from SVN
I haven't got my hands into it yet but looks like a good solution...
Seldaek: WebTestCase isn't quite the right thing - it's for testing a view directly, and a controller or model only indirectly.
A unit test case for a controller would invoke the controller, likely giving it a mock object for the templating engine (e.g. a mock Smarty object), then check the values that were assigned to that object for display: for example, if you invoked the controller for /countries/south-sudan, you could check that the template variable $continent was set to "Africa". This kind of unit testing wouldn't actually involve any template rendering in most cases.
i want to convert zend php to cake php but not finding correct book and guiding to do that????
Just download Cake, install and configure it and then gradually migrate your existing code into it. There is no standard recipe how to do that. You have to do that manually, class by class, line by line. Cake's API is quite different from ZF's API so this will take a while, depending on how much coupling you got. Also, ZF does not have any ActiveRecord, while Cake is built around that, so the database part will probably take longest.
Migrating from framework to framework is a sure thing to introduce bugs into the code. If you don't have a solid unit-test base already, it's a good opportunity to add a test before migrating a class.
On a sidenote: why do you want to to do that anyway? Cake is compatible with PHP4 and has a rather messy and slow performing codebase. Migrating your application from ZF to Cake is likely a downgrade. And as others pointed out, you could have Cake and ZF coexist.
I suggest you learn how to use both frameworks and then port the code manually. There are no tools that will do this for you; there simply is no way to do this automatically, especially given then highly flexible nature of ZF.
Learn both, use your understanding to migrate the code.
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