Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #5558

Re: Dynamic form generation

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/18/2012 4:33 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message news:jmk2lu$hgn$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 4/17/2012 8:49 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Denis McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:59:52 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
>>>>> If you used a proper framework ...
>>>>
>>>> ... then you'd have all the junk and baggage that comes along with that
>>>> framework, including any security flaws in the framework.
>>>>
>>>> Not saying that frameworks are inherently bad, but they're not
>>>> automatically the solution either.
>>>
>>> TINSTAAFL. If you want complete flexibility of the application as the OP
>>> wants, you have to have an abstraction layer in your application,
>>> i.e. it
>>> has to be built on a framework (some people really should reflect on the
>>> term "framework" and its etymology). Abstraction layers come at a price:
>>> Increased overall complexity of the application and decreased
>>> efficiency for
>>> tasks that do not require as much flexibility.
>>>
>>
>> Yup, and when you use a framework you force the application to match
>> the framework, instead of allowing the application to meet the
>> client's needs.
>>
>> It may work - but then it may not, also.
>
> The client's needs are met by screens/reports which have the right
> layout and which perform the right functions. My framework does not
> stand in the way of that at all. When user transactions are initially
> generated they have default screens and default behaviour, but these can
> be customised to whatever level of sophistication you want.
>

The client's needs are met by the APPLICATION.  This is much more than 
the screens and the layouts.  But then if all you do are trivial 
database applications, then I can see where something like that can help.

However, your example of over 200 tables and 350 relationships is a 
perfect example of how bloated such code can become.

>>> Whether that framework was written by you or someone else is another
>>> matter.
>>> Chances are that a framework written by someone else has already gained
>>> enough adoption in the global software community that its flaws –
>>> including
>>> security flaws – are more quickly detected and fixed than in a framework
>>> that you have written yourself. On the other hand, chances are that a
>>> framework you have written yourself can be better adjusted *by you*
>>> to do
>>> what you want than a framework written by someone else, especially if
>>> you
>>> created it for the same project in which you are using it.
>>>
>>
>> So? Good programming practices and test cases will eliminate more
>> security flaws than many of the "frameworks" out there. Have you seen
>> some of the crap code which has been written "by committee"? Not all
>> of it, but a lot of the donations are from people who don't really
>> understand what they're doing - or at least don't write code like they
>> know what they're doing.
>>
>>> Inevitably all frameworks become bloated if functionality for
>>> flexibility
>>> keeps being added to them. It would appear that there is a point where a
>>> framework author should stop improving it and start something new for
>>> a new
>>> project, maybe based on old code (but sometimes a rewrite is less
>>> expensive
>>> and turns out to be better). IOW, it is a good idea if you built
>>> frameworks
>>> with modularity in mind and use them only *as needed* (not simply for
>>> the
>>> sake of using them, like trying to appear cool to the crowd).
>>>
>>>
>>> PointedEars
>>
>> If a framework attempts to be "all things to all people", then that's
>> quite true. But the same is true of *any* code.
>>
>> However, a limited framework with limited goals doesn't necessarily
>> have to be the case.
>>
>> For instance, in my case - I have a framework which builds PHP classes
>> to interface to a database. It generates a lot of usable code for
>> those classes, including form handling.
>
> So you framework generates "a lot" of code, does it? My framework
> generates very small amounts of code which call shared functions or
> which inherit code from abstract classes.
>

Yup, for instance, it generates all the set and get methods for the 
applicable class, as well as database access code (insert/update/delete 
for single rows and single rows and lists of multiple rows for SELECT). 
  (Most of the access code is in parent classes). It also generates the 
code necessary to validate a field.  Some stock fields (like "must be 
integer") have predefined validation functions.  Others, like passwords 
where the rules may change, allow the validation to be handled by a 
regex, function call or similar.

It also has the ability to generate forms html to display (read/write or 
read only).  And this is all one function.  If I need a different layout 
for a different page, it's easy to copy/paste a new function and redo 
the output.

It also has a function to populate the object from $_GET or $_POST 
values (with validation).

>> However, since each class is pretty much independent, I can easily
>> change a class without affecting the rest of the program.
>
> So can I with my framework.
>
>> I don't have it where it will work with multiple tables yet (something
>> I will do one of these days), but it takes a huge amount of the
>> repetitive work off of me.
>
> Removing the need for all this repetitive coding, the "plumbing" as I
> call it, is exactly what my framework does.
>

Not if it only generates a tiny bit of code.

>> And no, I don't try to use it for every project. But where a project
>> is database-intensive, it suits my purposes.
>
> All my applications are database-intensive, which is why I use a
> framework which is centred around the database.
>

Ah, that explains it, then.  Database access is easy (although many 
people can still screw that up).  Most of my applications need to do 
real work.

But I'm also not so stupid as to think that my frameworks is good for 
everyone.  It works for me.  But I don't try to foist it off on someone 
else without telling them it's my framework.  That is just plain dishonest.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-04-11 20:48 -0700
  Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-12 00:03 -0400
  Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-12 05:46 +0100
  Re: Dynamic form generation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-04-11 21:52 -0700
    Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 12:42 +0000
      Re: Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 20:43 -0700
        Re: Dynamic form generation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-04-12 21:55 -0700
          Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 13:19 +0000
        Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-13 09:59 +0100
          Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 13:22 +0000
            Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-17 14:49 +0200
              Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-17 11:36 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-18 09:33 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-18 07:59 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-19 09:56 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-19 08:29 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 09:27 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-20 07:47 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 12:22 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-21 10:19 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 11:45 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-22 10:09 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 18:21 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 20:56 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 09:23 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-24 16:20 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 10:04 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-25 08:29 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 12:45 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-22 19:21 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 13:50 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 11:10 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 17:11 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 18:54 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 18:55 +0100
                [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-25 13:22 +0200
                Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 12:46 +0100
                Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 12:51 +0100
                Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-27 10:26 +0200
                [OT] Yes-or-no questions (was: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 07:56 +0200
          Re: Dynamic form generation "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2012-04-14 08:53 -0500
            Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 08:33 +0100
              Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-15 08:51 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-16 09:31 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-16 08:33 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-16 15:11 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-16 11:18 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-17 09:18 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-17 06:07 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-18 09:10 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-18 08:09 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-19 09:27 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-19 08:41 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 10:10 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-20 08:09 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 10:35 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-21 06:21 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 10:27 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-22 10:43 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 15:23 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 12:24 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 17:29 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:37 +0100
                What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 14:10 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Paul Herber <paul@pherber.com> - 2012-04-23 14:22 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-04-23 15:27 +0200
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:33 -0400
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 15:26 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 12:25 -0400
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2012-04-23 19:45 +0200
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:35 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 19:45 +0200
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-28 08:48 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-28 09:23 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-28 08:37 -0400
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 14:46 +0200
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:31 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-24 12:32 +1000
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-04-24 19:32 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 19:02 +1000
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 12:20 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-22 23:59 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 14:05 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:35 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-23 15:41 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:39 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:47 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 08:52 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-25 08:34 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-27 09:52 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-27 14:16 +0100
          Re: Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 15:23 -0700
  Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-12 10:52 +0100
  Re: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-13 11:39 +0200
  Re: Dynamic form generation Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-04-13 15:27 +0200

csiph-web