30 May
2006
30 May
'06
3:57 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
are there any reasons against introducing Smarty as template engine with
phpMyAdmin? And of course ship it with phpMyAdmin?
the only 'problem' i see is that Smarty needs a writable directory to
store its compiled files - i don't know if it is possible to
'precompile' this files as normally the templates will not be changed by
the user
- --
Sebastian Mendel
www.sebastianmendel.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEfE/bX/0lClpZDr4RAsAiAKCPbqo6Ok+yGacad0ygn+nz3seqlQCfZNy1
GkBkjYV14Hh0HlbWiu+XDUM=
=Yxh8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
30 May
30 May
4:01 a.m.
Hi
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:59:55 +0200
Sebastian Mendel <lists(a)sebastianmendel.de> wrote:
are there any reasons against introducing Smarty as
template engine with
phpMyAdmin? And of course ship it with phpMyAdmin?
I don't see any reason except that it needs quite a lot of time to
switch everything to templates. Maybe it would be even better to
start new project :-).
the only 'problem' i see is that Smarty needs
a writable directory to
store its compiled files - i don't know if it is possible to
'precompile' this files as normally the templates will not be changed by
the user
Having need for writable directory is not good, I'd prefer if we could
avoid it.
--
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
4:11 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
By not supporting the user to choose different smarty templates (which I agree
should not be our first goal for introducing them) we can deliver pre-compiled
template files in a non-writable directory. Smarty's compile checks can be
disabled/bypassed, so that it will work okay. It would just be required upon
bundling the release to parse the compiled templates in a single run so that the
right compiled *.php files are delivered.
Actually disabling the compile checks would also speed things up a bit.
And I agree, forcing a writable directory wouldn't be so great security-wise.
Best regards,
Garvin
- --
++ Garvin Hicking | Web-Entwickler [PHP] | www.garv.in | ICQ 21392242
++ Developer of | www.phpMyAdmin.net | www.s9y.org
++ Make me happy | http://wishes.garv.in
the only
'problem' i see is that Smarty needs a writable directory to store
its compiled files - i don't know if it is possible to 'precompile' this
files
as normally the templates will not be changed by the user
Having need for writable directory is not good, I'd prefer if we could
avoid it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEfFNKUZolOPYrUhYRApPvAJ41ezrfE/LXqLI89tqmJ4ErP19b1ACgw4xg
TP1w8Zf+I5JxRm2vPFs7S54=
=Ln5i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
31 May
31 May
1:57 a.m.
Michal Čihař wrote:
Hi
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:59:55 +0200
Sebastian Mendel <lists(a)sebastianmendel.de> wrote:
> are there any reasons against introducing Smarty as template engine with
> phpMyAdmin? And of course ship it with phpMyAdmin?
>
I doesn't get my vote, I don't think it's a good idea. Main
reasons:
1. The benefits are very small except for a very small group of people.
I actually don't see a single reason why this would be implemented,
things like color adjustments, switching logos and the like are already
possible and pretty easy.
2. The development of additional features would take a longer time + the
added complexity when debugging.
3. The switch to smarty templates would take forever (duke nukem forever
kind of forever)
4. Smarty, if not used right, causes a lot of overhead, even when the
templates get cached. Expect to see at least 0.1-0.2 seconds added to
the current load time.
I don't see any reason except that it needs quite
a lot of time to
switch everything to templates. Maybe it would be even better to
start new project :-).
the only 'problem' i see is that Smarty
needs a writable directory to
store its compiled files - i don't know if it is possible to
'precompile' this files as normally the templates will not be changed by
the user
Having need for writable directory is not good, I'd prefer if we could
avoid it.
2:24 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Arnor!
I doesn't get my vote, I don't think it's
a good idea. Main reasons:
1. The benefits are very small except for a very small group of people.
I actually don't see a single reason why this would be implemented,
things like color adjustments, switching logos and the like are already possible
and pretty easy. 2. The development of additional features would take a longer
time + the added complexity when debugging. 3. The switch to smarty templates
would take forever (duke nukem forever kind of forever) 4. Smarty, if not used
right, causes a lot of overhead, even when the templates get cached. Expect to
see at least 0.1-0.2 seconds added to the current load time.
I think you are misunderstanding the reason for templates.
Templares are there to separate logic from display. It's not about us being able
to make different GUIs possible, it's about having clean PHP and clean HTML code
without intermixture.
About point 2, the development would take less time actually, because everything
will be more modular. Only initial deployment of the templating engine will take
time that would not happen if we were not using it. But as Sebastian already
posted, it speeds up development for all future tasks and also adds clarity for
developers.
Point 3.: No, as Sebastian pointed out the migration can be done almost seamless
and iterative.
Point 4., there is no such thing as "seconds" in terms of perfomance measuring.
It's all about percentage. Actually with pre-compiled PHP code, the only
overhead that happens is variables being assigned to a central array and being
read frmo there. I am quite sure that if we test it later on, the performance
penalty will be below 5%. When using a PHP bytecode cache, performance might
even increase.
So, IMHO only point 4 is a valid concern, but this is IMHO neglectible because
of the clear improvement in the code base, which scares of most developers
today.
Best regards,
Garvin
- --
++ Garvin Hicking | Web-Entwickler [PHP] | www.garv.in | ICQ 21392242
++ Developer of | www.phpMyAdmin.net | www.s9y.org
++ Make me happy | http://wishes.garv.in
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEfYu7UZolOPYrUhYRAngOAJ92Ww3ItNRGe0/BMiBEhOvq3Cc4KQCfVzW0
JVGZnttp76ycxSDHFAq/qZs=
=muaY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:30 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Garvin Hicking schrieb:
Hi Arnor!
application logic from display logic! not logic from display! ;-)
- --
Sebastian Mendel
www.sebastianmendel.de
I doesn't get my vote, I don't think
it's a good idea. Main reasons:
1. The benefits are very small except for a very
small group of people.
I actually don't see a single reason why this would be implemented,
things like color adjustments, switching logos and the like are already possible
and pretty easy. 2. The development of additional features would take a longer
time + the added complexity when debugging. 3. The switch to smarty templates
would take forever (duke nukem forever kind of forever) 4. Smarty, if not used
right, causes a lot of overhead, even when the templates get cached. Expect to
see at least 0.1-0.2 seconds added to the current load time.
I think you are misunderstanding the reason for templates.
Templares are there to separate logic from display. It's not about us being able
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEfY0QX/0lClpZDr4RAm9NAKCY4Z1zJXAkB3DwBy1xSyUqHSgC8wCfceHQ
ljjbfMlGYCWsTmxLGWZOWqI=
=3KeZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:31 a.m.
Garvin Hicking a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Arnor!
Garvin,
are there some OSS projects of a scale comparable to phpMyAdmin, that
are using Smarty?
Marc
I doesn't get my vote, I don't think
it's a good idea. Main reasons:
1. The benefits are very small except for a very small group of people.
I actually don't see a single reason why this would be implemented,
things like color adjustments, switching logos and the like are already possible
and pretty easy. 2. The development of additional features would take a longer
time + the added complexity when debugging. 3. The switch to smarty templates
would take forever (duke nukem forever kind of forever) 4. Smarty, if not used
right, causes a lot of overhead, even when the templates get cached. Expect to
see at least 0.1-0.2 seconds added to the current load time.
I think you are misunderstanding the reason for templates.
Templares are there to separate logic from display. It's not about us being able
to make different GUIs possible, it's about having clean PHP and clean HTML code
without intermixture.
About point 2, the development would take less time actually, because everything
will be more modular. Only initial deployment of the templating engine will take
time that would not happen if we were not using it. But as Sebastian already
posted, it speeds up development for all future tasks and also adds clarity for
developers.
Point 3.: No, as Sebastian pointed out the migration can be done almost seamless
and iterative.
Point 4., there is no such thing as "seconds" in terms of perfomance
measuring.
It's all about percentage. Actually with pre-compiled PHP code, the only
overhead that happens is variables being assigned to a central array and being
read frmo there. I am quite sure that if we test it later on, the performance
penalty will be below 5%. When using a PHP bytecode cache, performance might
even increase.
So, IMHO only point 4 is a valid concern, but this is IMHO neglectible because
of the clear improvement in the code base, which scares of most developers
today.
Best regards,
Garvin
2:45 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marc Delisle schrieb:
are there some OSS projects of a scale comparable to
phpMyAdmin, that
are using Smarty?
http://smarty.php.net/resources.php
- --
Sebastian Mendel
www.sebastianmendel.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEfZB/X/0lClpZDr4RAtjmAKCXdrRsjuCegRWWTMlGji2wP3F8LgCfZ243
flLI3gcUwswrP2VOrvcCZ5Q=
=vmET
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:51 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Marc!
are there some OSS projects of a scale comparable to
phpMyAdmin, that are using
Smarty?
Are you speaking of a scale in terms of "public awareness" of "lines of
code"?
Regarding sheer project size - serendipity is fairly large and using it quite
successfully. xtCommerce is also using Smarty (but in a rather bad way). Xoops,
Tiki CMS, Drupal, Postnuke, phpLens, phpDocumentor.
Amongst PHP developers it is IMHO recognized as the most flexible templating
engine.
Best regards,
Garvin
- --
++ Garvin Hicking | Web-Entwickler [PHP] | www.garv.in | ICQ 21392242
++ Developer of | www.phpMyAdmin.net | www.s9y.org
++ Make me happy | http://wishes.garv.in
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEfZITUZolOPYrUhYRAiPEAJ9wpPcgHnpeSsT6gT6K29aVkTLI/QCeM2Cu
YBOAIM0e7PG53ZmZZSgHX+M=
=XrKW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4:18 a.m.
Garvin wrote:
Are you speaking of a scale in terms of "public
awareness" of "lines of code"?
Regarding sheer project size - serendipity is fairly large and using it quite
successfully. xtCommerce is also using Smarty (but in a rather bad way). Xoops,
Tiki CMS, Drupal, Postnuke, phpLens, phpDocumentor.
Amongst PHP developers it is IMHO recognized as the most flexible templating
engine.
What about security concerns?? You'd be on the mercy of another
projects' bugs, continuity and activity. And constantly trying to be up
to date to some other people's codebase. Just thaughts...
Best regards, Arnor Heidar
4:22 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Arnór schrieb:
Garvin wrote:
we are already at the mercy of other projects bug's: apache, mysql, php,
fpdf, the os, the user, ... ;-)
- --
Sebastian Mendel
www.sebastianmendel.de
Are you speaking of a scale in terms of
"public awareness" of "lines
of code"?
Regarding sheer project size - serendipity is fairly large and using
it quite
successfully. xtCommerce is also using Smarty (but in a rather bad
way). Xoops,
Tiki CMS, Drupal, Postnuke, phpLens, phpDocumentor.
Amongst PHP developers it is IMHO recognized as the most flexible
templating
engine.
What about security concerns?? You'd be on the mercy of another
projects' bugs, continuity and activity. And constantly trying to be up
to date to some other people's codebase. Just thaughts... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEfadLX/0lClpZDr4RAn0mAJ0cgnU9iyv0hdE1Ll8k0sF3YmpYEQCeKRcK
tBMTQXTxvYqQaPEoTWxu5ig=
=Oe+1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4:22 a.m.
Hi Arnor!
What about security concerns?? You'd be on the
mercy of another
projects' bugs, continuity and activity. And constantly trying to be up to date
to some other people's codebase. Just thaughts...
Yes, this is true but applies to any dependency one has in a project. However
the Smarty project is deployed on many, many sites. Also the ZEND Framework
endorses its use, so the chances are that Smarty will be well-maintained for
quite some time in the future.
Best regards,
Garvin
--
++ Garvin Hicking | Web-Entwickler [PHP] | www.garv.in | ICQ 21392242
++ Developer of | www.phpMyAdmin.net | www.s9y.org
++ Make me happy | http://wishes.garv.in
30 May
30 May
4:06 a.m.
Sebastian Mendel a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
are there any reasons against introducing Smarty as template engine with
phpMyAdmin? And of course ship it with phpMyAdmin?
Lack of manpower on the PMA team?
the only 'problem' i see is that Smarty needs a writable directory to
store its compiled files - i don't know if it is possible to
'precompile' this files as normally the templates will not be changed by
the user
We have to be careful to avoid adding another pre-install constraint.
Now I don't know much Smarty so my opinion is not formed yet.
Marc
4:51 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marc Delisle schrieb:
Sebastian Mendel a écrit :
it is hard to explain all the advantages you get from templates - most
you will only see/recognize if you start using it - at least for my
projects it helps me save a lot of time/manpower!
- --
Sebastian Mendel
www.sebastianmendel.de
Hi,
are there any reasons against introducing Smarty as template engine with
phpMyAdmin? And of course ship it with phpMyAdmin?
Lack of manpower on the PMA team? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEfFyPX/0lClpZDr4RAlnJAJ4jkUq1inb8y1BAa3u0rqUyOwSreACeMv1U
jb7u9uIIXKr/jZJVzYImzes=
=UAIk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
5:01 a.m.
Hi
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:54:07 +0200
Sebastian Mendel <lists(a)sebastianmendel.de> wrote:
it is hard to explain all the advantages you get from
templates - most
you will only see/recognize if you start using it - at least for my
projects it helps me save a lot of time/manpower!
Templates help a lot, however it doesn't decrease time needed to switch
to them ;-).
--
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
5:07 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michal ?iha? schrieb:
Hi
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:54:07 +0200
Sebastian Mendel <lists(a)sebastianmendel.de> wrote:
Yes, but it has a high ROI!
- --
Sebastian Mendel
www.sebastianmendel.de
it is hard to explain all the advantages you get
from templates - most
you will only see/recognize if you start using it - at least for my
projects it helps me save a lot of time/manpower!
Templates help a lot, however it doesn't decrease time needed to switch
to them ;-). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEfGBcX/0lClpZDr4RAmeNAKC5co0xZVMhH7Xoy2iGxt0WMk9JdgCguds9
N9MuKcAoLudX5gI2hRV+xIk=
=fTAO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6674
days inactive
6675
days old
16 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Arnór -
Garvin Hicking -
Marc Delisle -
Michal Čihař -
Sebastian Mendel