×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CodeIgniter 1.7 Professional Development

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

Books 75

RickJWagner writes "CodeIgniter is a multi-purpose, open source PHP web application framework that can dramatically reduce the amount of coding required in developing a full-featured website. This book promises to introduce the reader to the most productive APIs and demonstrate their usage with minimal code snippets. In that regard, I think the book lives up to its promise." Read on for the rest of RickJWagner's review.The first chapter covers CodeIgniter's MVC framework, which provides a way for a programmer to logically partition code so it's easier to maintain. For those of us who aren't accomplished PHP coders, this chapter also contains a PHP style guide, which I thought was a nice feature. By the way, the code snippets throughout the book are clean and easy to read -- the author must have followed his own advice on code style.

The second chapter is an introduction to some of the more productive libraries you'll find in CodeIgniter. Here you'll find some excellent advice on how to take timing metrics in your application, how to secure it, and how to accomplish routine activities like retrieving data from the user's request. Other 'web topics' are addressed here, like how to manipulate the session, how to manage emails and file uploads, and much more.

Chapter 3 handles form inputs and databases. As is common throughout the book, the reader is given minimal technical overview. What you'll find instead is a very brief explanation of what's about to be covered, then a few very readable source lines that demonstrate use of CodeIgniter in action. If this book were your only resource, I'm sure there would be times where you didn't find enough material to get everything done you wanted to do. But if you have a web browser (and Google) handy, a book of this type can be an effective index to help you find the parts of a framework you want to leverage.

The next few chapters cover user authentication and application security. I found these to be a little spotty -- heavy in some places, light in others. Still, the material was useful and not difficult to read or understand.

A nice chapter on tips for building a large-scale application was next. I found this one interesting -- many of the ideas were well-known, but a few had not occurred to me before. I liked reading it. Next up was a chapter on Web Services. I didn't take the time to test the provided code for this chapter, but I would like to sometime. If it works as I hope it will, I may have a new way to stand-up test web services!

The final two chapters are on extending CodeIgniter (it's great that the library authors institutionalized this!) and donating code back to the community.

So who is this book for? The book itself tells you it's for expert PHP coders, but I don't believe that's exactly right. Given the easy-to-read nature of the book and the light treatment given to some of the meatier topics, I'd say this book is about right for a novice-to-intermediate-level PHP coder. I haven't done a lot in PHP, yet I found the code reading very easy.

If I had a wish for the book, I'd wish for a little more depth in the harder topics and maybe some quick overviews for a few topics. (Diagrams accompanying the overviews would be nice, too. This book has few illustrations except for screenshots.)

All things considered, I'd recommend this book to coders who are getting started with PHP and CodeIgniter. It's easy to read and will get the reader pointed in the right direction for solving many web problems.

You can purchase CodeIgniter 1.7 professional development from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

75 comments

i'm a nigger (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32513484)

mod me down for being a nigger

Welcome to 2010! (-1, Offtopic)

msimm (580077) | more than 3 years ago | (#32513810)

It's okay not to be racist anymore! Turns out people aren't really different because of the color of their skin! Go figure?

PHP frameworks (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#32513490)

How crappy can they all be that a new one pops up every other week?

Re:PHP frameworks (2, Informative)

sockman (133264) | more than 3 years ago | (#32513626)

CodeIgniter has been around for a while, dude.

Re:PHP frameworks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32518824)

I just took a look at the documentation on their site. The whole framework is garbage. It requires as much work to accomplish anything as writing everything from scratch directly in PHP.

Re:PHP frameworks (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32513650)

umm, CodeIgniter is about 4 years old now. Perhaps they don't pop up every other week, you've just never heard of most of them since you're probably not a PHP developer.

Re:PHP frameworks (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#32518836)

Nah, not every other week, but every year it's a different framework that is the "Coolest thing ever and everyone who isn't using it is dumb" according to most of the PHP developers I know and work around. CI was their popular choice in 2007/2008. That was going to rock the web development world after the whole Ruby on Rails thing died down. 2008/2009 all I heard about was Drupal being the coolest framework ever. Before CI it was CakePHP. That was 2006/7ish. Before Cake, Zend was all the rage.

I was the system guy who would suggest Perl first, then why not use a database abstraction library like ADOdb or PDO and build out from there as it didn't matter what framework they were going to use. Within 30 days the developers would tire of it and end up recycling code they'd used before or end up writing their own framework time and again.

Snails? (4, Funny)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#32513620)

The cover photo is of... snails?

Naturally, the immediate association is with "a snail's pace."

+1 for unintended consequence. Sigh.

Re:Snails? (4, Funny)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#32513772)

Maybe it is snails because it leaves a sticky, messy trail wherever it goes? :p

j/k

Re:Snails? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32514914)

I thought they were seashells? lol

Web application framework? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32513708)

Why would I rely on something that keeps being re-invented by everyone every month, with unknown future support?

I'm not insane. I'm writing my own web application framework. If I'm the one writing it, I know it inside-out. If I use it, I update it myself. That's the only way to be sure.

Re:Web application framework? (0, Redundant)

heruvian (1816212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32513844)

Truly, you are correct. In fact, why would you rely on a programming language that keeps being changed every few months. I am writing my own programming language. If I'm the one writing it, I know it inside-out. If I use it, I update it myself. That's the only way to be sure. In fact, why would you rely on an operating system that keeps being changed every few months? I am writing my own operating system (written in the programming language I created of course). If I'm the one writing it, I know it inside out. If I use it, I update it myself. That's the only way to be sure. /sarcasm The reasons to use a framework are many - -You don't need to worry about re-inventing the wheel. -You don't need to worry as much about security vulnerabilities -You can take advantage of stable libraries that are written by others (many of whom may be better programmers than you) -In a group setting, you can find people that already know the codebase and don't need to spend time learning your framework I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but I don't have time.

Re:Web application framework? (4, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514112)

You don't need to worry as much about security vulnerabilities

It's mantras like these that lead to so much insecure web code being written. You should always be equally worried about security no matter if you're using a framework or homegrown code.

Re:Web application framework? (3, Insightful)

heruvian (1816212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514376)

If you are using a popular framework, there are many people who can discover and fix vulnerabilities. If you write your own framework, you are responsible for handling that all yourself.

Re:Web application framework? (0, Redundant)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514430)

If you are using a popular framework, there are many people who can discover and fix vulnerabilities.

And? How does this in any way entail that you should be less worried about security issues?

Re:Web application framework? (1)

heruvian (1816212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515056)

Well, as with any other task, if you have qualified people assisting you, you don't have to worry as much about the task being completed successfully.

Re:Web application framework? (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515074)

I think it would be better phrase "It allows you to be more confident in your application's security". You're semantically correct, a developer's level of concern for security shouldn't change.

Re:Web application framework? (1)

heruvian (1816212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515762)

So I just want to make sure I have this right:

less worried != more confident Ok. I will make sure to be more confident that my applications are secure, while still maintaining the same level of worry that they may be insecure.

Re:Web application framework? (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515166)

As with any programming, you can still create security problems for yourself even using a popular framework.

That's like claiming there's fewer security errors in PHP websites than Zope sites because PHP is more popular.

In fact, popular rarely equates to secure.

Linux is more popular, OpenBSD is arguably more secure. Security often offends the sensibilities that would make a thing popular.

Re:Web application framework? (1)

heruvian (1816212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515786)

But we are not comparing PHP to Zope or Linux to Open BSD. We are comparing a solid, mature framework, built and maintained by professionals, used on hundreds or thousands of sites, with a public bug reporting system to an ad hoc collection of code written by one person so your analogy doesn't hold.

Re:Web application framework? (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#32516596)

We are comparing a solid, mature framework, built and maintained by professionals, used on hundreds or thousands of sites, with a public bug reporting system to an ad hoc collection of code written by one person

Sounds like Linux vs OpenBSD to me!

Re:Web application framework? (1)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 3 years ago | (#32516860)

I don't really get why people use a framework for php at all. The whole point of php is so you can write web app code anyway you like. Writing to CI spec is such a waste of time since you literally have to track their APIs back to the source, and the functions defining these APIs are all over the place. Inject your own modules or applications into the existing session is hours of work just to track down what the hell they did. All the customer code are sitting in an include container, that handle sessions. Attempt to use custom session verification for binary data transfer is a royal pain. Those who think CI documentation is good are kidding themselves or just trying to do something extremely simple.

Re:Web application framework? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32518066)

Half the reason to utilize a framework based on a design pattern like MVC is to maintain organization in any decent sized web application. Sure, writing procedural code is fine for a site that has one or two web forms, however, as your code base increases, you need reliable organization and structure for your own sanity and for other developers to follow as well. Nothing worse that jumping into a mountain of procedural spaghetti code.

Re:Web application framework? (1)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 3 years ago | (#32566498)

I beg to differ, there is no difference tracking down a piece of code in your mountain of framework definition and tracking down a piece of code in a mountain of procedural spaghetti code. In fact, it probably is easier to track down the procedural spaghetti code via grep than search recursively over 6 directories deep framework definition with the same code appear over and over again in 500+ different self inclusive source files. It doesn't matter how large your project is, as long as you maintain a sane convention, odds are it'd be easy to track down code. The only advantage OOP has over procedural code is reusability. However this reusability also makes tracking down code a royal pain in the ass.

Not so cut and dry (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514844)

Frameworks trade the time needed to learn the framework for time writing your own code. The presumption that you will learn the framework as well as your own code is questionable at best. Odds are you won't need everything in the framework. The benefits of a wide community using the framework, and, if the framework is well maintained, having it tweaked as the community reports problems, is a big plus; but it is counter-featured by problems and vulnerabilities affecting wide swaths of users (until fixed or patched) and by input from users that becomes less significant as the size of the community grows, as well as a noise factor where requests for features and fixes begin to cost significant time just to figure out which ones are worthwhile, and which ones are not. Finally, bugs in a widely used framework may go unfixed for considerable lengths of time, or may never be fixed.

If you're a good enough programmer, languages like python make writing server-side functionality pretty much a doddle. We're a long way from the obfuscatory nightmare of perl on the interpreted side of things. C still provides the "big dog" of speed and power, providing that you have decent memory management and string handling available to you in your own collection of source (and I think most C programmers should have such tools... I sure do.) If you're a client-side person, there are certainly various options, but I'm not qualified to talk about them, as I am not a fan of client-side processing at all. As far as I'm concerned, the compatibility benefits of server-side processing trump anything the client side has to offer.

The benefits of rolling your own are pretty significant. Bug? Not only do you "know the programmer", you're the Most Important User, so you get to set the priorities. Want a feature? No one knows better than you just how to make it fit with the existing codebase. Hacking? No one sees your code but you, and you can ensure that everything, and I mean everything, goes through "washer" functions limiting length and character set and range. Security by obscurity can really be extremely effective.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using a framework; but I am saying that it is quite wrong to consider rolling your own as "right out." It is fairly easy to do, builds you a toolkit that is all yours (and consequently something you will know very well how to use), offers a measure of security unavailable in a public framework as well as any type of security the public framework might use, puts your priorities right up front, hones your programming skills at a higher level than using canned functions does, and it is very rewarding in the general sense -- there's something valuable to be said for "I wrote that."

another PHP framework... (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514004)

open source PHP web application framework that can dramatically reduce the amount of coding required in developing a full-featured website

and dramatically increase the amount of unnecessarily executing code.

if your project doesn't function, how could you not have seen that without mocking it up? and if it does work, now you have to recode it completely to make it scalable. i never understand the lure of these development platforms on top of development platforms.

Re:another PHP framework... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32514120)

It's about not reinventing the wheel. Maybe you're using your own framework, product of earlier projects.
I.E., everytime you need some functions for forms validation, do you write a new set of functions from the scratch?

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514228)

It's about not reinventing the wheel.

If that were true there wouldn't be the dozens upon dozens of frameworks that probably share little to no code between them. In fact, these frameworks are nothing but a constant reinventing of the wheel.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

heruvian (1816212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514460)

You could argue that the people creating these frameworks are reinventing the wheel.

The point is, when you create your own framework YOU are reinventing the wheel. I would rather take advantage of solid code (since I use zend framework, I have no way of knowing if CI has solid code or not) written by someone else than to be spending my time writing code that is available freely, and is probably written better and more robust than I could manage, at least without many iterations of refactoring.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514506)

I'm not advocating everyone create their own framework (unless they really have a good use case for doing so) and thus you're arguing against a point I wasn't making.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

heruvian (1816212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515168)

You were responding to another poster who, while discussing the comparative advantages of using a framework built by someone else vs building your own, indicated that an advantage of using other's frameworks is that you are not reinventing the wheel. You said that the development of many different frameworks is an example of reinventing the wheel. I merely pointed out that if you are using a framework created by someone else, you are taking advantage of their efforts, and, by definition, not reinventing the wheel. I cant help but think that most of the people dissing pre-built web application frameworks are not people employed in a job where they need to build web applications in a production environment.

Re:another PHP framework... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32516426)

I'm talking about USING a framework, no writting one. And I'm assuming that indeed you are writting one just because you say you're not using one :D

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515090)

CI is probably the best at not adding layers and layers of cruft of all the frameworks I've tried - with the possible exception of Django.

Then again, i can think of several high-traffic sites using Django, but not of a single one using a PHP framework...

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515234)

the layers and layers are unnecessary steps in the procedural logic pathways that result in increased latency and overall memory footprint... generally the very first things addressed when optimizing a system.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515292)

I'm aware - I'm not saying that using a framework is great idea for a highly scalable system, only that CI is probably the *least bad* of all the PHP frameworks.

And honestly, if you're that concerned about scalability, you're not going to be using PHP.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515534)

And honestly, if you're that concerned about scalability, you're not going to be using PHP.

I know that it isn't always the smoothest, but Facebook is PHP, and is pretty fricken huge.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515646)

Facebook has grown organically from a very small site. If you had to write Facebook, knowing that it would grow to the size it is today, would you use PHP?

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

gauauu (649169) | more than 3 years ago | (#32516612)

I know that it isn't always the smoothest, but Facebook is PHP, and is pretty fricken huge.

Sort of. According to what an employee told me last week, lots of the core services are written in other languages, and then PHP is the glue that queries those services and builds the page itself. They then have found that that really isn't fast enough for what they want, so they've written their own compiler (Hip Hop [github.com]), which compiles PHP down to C++ which can then be compiled by G++.

So yeah, facebook uses it. But not exactly like you'd expect.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

soppsa (1797376) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517680)

As a result of using PHP, they have an awful server/visitor ratio, far worse than what most large scale webapps accomplish using alternate languages. And on top of this, their 'PHP' isn't really what most people consider PHP, compiled to C++, etc.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

heruvian (1816212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515876)

I agree. Rasmus even says "Any script based language is simply not fast enough". And frameworks are going to slow you down as well. But, when you compare how many real high traffic sites there are on the internet to how many low to medium traffic sites there are, you can clearly see that there is a place for PHP frameworks. Maybe not at the most elite levels, but definitely a big place. I think of PHP as the Toyota of web application languages (especially apt in light of Toyota's recent history)

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515972)

maybe if Toyota's were offered with mr. fusion options to turn garbage into fuel...

PHP with the zend optimizer or any other compile/cache bytecode tools, has performance not worse than 10% of "pure" compiled servers doing the same tasks.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32522860)

I would also argue that once an application gets big enough that it needs that level of optimization, it probably needs to be rewritten anyhow, and you can afford to hire the best of the best to do it.

Re:another PHP framework... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517908)

And honestly, if you're that concerned about scalability, you're not going to be using PHP.

You clearly do not know what scaling web applications is about. PHP scales quite well and easily...provided you aren't writing some rubbish spaghetti code.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515326)

i've heard of several sites that use Drupal, but don't frequent any of them.... i know many many sites run on custom frameworks in PHP and Python or similar. nowadays, there is generally a rpc service layer with minimized custom clients/servers, but i've seen many of those running PHP on lighttpd and getting similar throughput results to purely custom rpc servers written in python or C.

Re:another PHP framework... (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517878)

In my experience, the only decent PHP framework is Wordpress. Seriously, you can do a hell of a lot with very little work just by creating a theme and using three or four plugins. You can crank out an awesome, somewhat customized (feature-wise, I mean), client-editable site in a day, counting the graphics work, and 99% of the maintenance is just updating Wordpress when a bugfix or new version comes out. It's hard to beat that for smaller sites.

I've found that if I can't do it without any framework or with Wordpress, I'm better off using Python and Django rather than trying to wrestle with PHP's various mediocre-at-best frameworks, several of which I've tried and none of which have impressed me like Django or RoR (not even the similar CakePHP)

Raw PHP (optionally with a standalone ORM), Wordpress, or pick another language entirely. That's my take on it after seven or eight years working in the language. The other frameworks will just make you wish you were using something better.

Re:another PHP framework... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32541744)

open source PHP web application framework that can dramatically reduce the amount of coding required in developing a full-featured website

and dramatically increase the amount of unnecessarily executing code.

if your project doesn't function, how could you not have seen that without mocking it up? and if it does work, now you have to recode it completely to make it scalable. i never understand the lure of these development platforms on top of development platforms.

STFU!

Re:another PHP framework... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32541876)

no?

Re:another PHP framework... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32541958)

You sir are a complete idiot, I would choose a well documented framework that in the hands of a competent developer creates very well organized and minimal application code for me to look through, it is pretty much self documenting. If you don't use any kind of framework I would hate to see the crap you develop. Of course any developer can create their own homegrown libraries, but the good ones are not stupid enough to reinvent the wheel, take your crappy code you wrote in your mothers basement and GTFO!

Re:another PHP framework... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32543684)

that only works if you're driving on a relatively flat, solid surface. where i develop, THERE ARE NO "ROADS".

go stick your wheel in ur mum's face. you are NOTHING.

why not everyone just drive semi trucks? everyone gets a semi truck. why would you design or build your own smaller car??? EVERYONE DRIVES SEMI-TRUCKS!

DIAF

Love codeigniter but a book?? (1)

Endophage (1685212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514064)

It doesn't strike me that somebody who can understand the CodeIgniter user guide would benefit at all from this book and I'm assuming that's what the target is given it has "Professional Development" in the title. The CodeIgniter user guide is some of the best documentation I've seen for any framework in any language.

Still supports PHP 4.3 (1)

Lordrashmi (167121) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514070)

I am sorry, but the framework still supports PHP version 4.3.2. Support for PHP 4 was ended at the end of 2007. Any framework that doesn't take advantage of the nice new features in PHP 5 bound to be full of kludges and outdated code.

That is just my reaction based on when I was comparing PHP frameworks, I didn't dig into their code so maybe I am wrong.

Re:Still supports PHP 4.3 (1)

centuren (106470) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514328)

I am sorry, but the framework still supports PHP version 4.3.2. Support for PHP 4 was ended at the end of 2007. Any framework that doesn't take advantage of the nice new features in PHP 5 bound to be full of kludges and outdated code.

That is just my reaction based on when I was comparing PHP frameworks, I didn't dig into their code so maybe I am wrong.

I haven't dug in too far, since I'm paid to spend my time working on my company's proprietary framework, but CodeIgniters seems to have done a pretty good job in how they've gone about maintaining PHP4 support. Clever solutions rather than outdated ones, to put it briefly. It also seems pretty easy to just use the parts of their code you need, and of course any code you write either within the framework or as a plugin can be 100% PHP5.

Re:Still supports PHP 4.3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32514588)

Why would supporting PHP 4 imply that it doesn't take advantage of new features in PHP 5?
(Also, 4.4.9 was released 2008-08-07.)

Re:Still supports PHP 4.3 (4, Informative)

salmonmoose (1147735) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514652)

It supports PHP 4, but doesn't rely on it - they have separate code-paths for PHP4 and 5, and some features just don't work in 4.

Re:Still supports PHP 4.3 (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515122)

I believe CI 2.0 will break compatibility with the PHP 4 tree. Why is waiting until the next major revision to break compatibility a bad thing?

PHP 5 adoption is taking a long time, too. There are still webhosts that only offer 4.3.x. They suck, but they're out there.

Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (5, Insightful)

uprise78 (1256084) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514322)

Highly recommended for anyone out there looking for a PHP framework that actually makes sense.

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (3, Informative)

Leafheart (1120885) | more than 3 years ago | (#32514720)

Highly recommended for anyone out there looking for a PHP framework that actually makes sense.

Wish I had mod points. Kohana is the natural evolution of CI and made for PHP 5. It is much, much better than CI.

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515152)

Kohana's documentation is giving me a server error. CI's major features is it's documentation. No thanks :)

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (3, Interesting)

Shaiku (1045292) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515722)

I guess you didn't bother to read the message with links to both the old and new documentation, or the note that points out that the documentation is in the userguide module of all releases. If it looks like an error message, it must be an error message, right?

And your logic is flawless. We should totally disregard any product or entity with a website that ever goes down for any reason. I've got a lot of documentation for TI Extended BASIC. Maybe you'd like to switch over? To hell with the merits of the architecture, right?

Kohana's major features are its active development, supportive community, documentation, examples apps, open development (vs developer overlord), and a lubricated passage to the current decade vs "Let's use yesteryear's technology, woo hoo, php4 and legacy support ftw."

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (1)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 3 years ago | (#32518896)

TI Extended Basic - you just flipped me into serious nostalgia mode.

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (1)

Shaiku (1045292) | more than 3 years ago | (#32525820)

I've got about 3 99/4a's and a peripheral expansion box. Wish I still had my Corcomp 9900 :( Getting more nostalgic?

OLD CS1
RUN

oh yeah

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32520186)

CodeIgniter has excellent documentation and *it is in one place*. In addition, it has a solid history and is the foundation of at least one widely-used commercial product. When Kohana's documentation consists of more than a few Getting Started and Basic Usage pages, people might pay more attention. Maybe one day it will get its own book too!

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (2, Informative)

lagi (303346) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517058)

get last kohana from github, install the userguide, read docs.
you'll thank me later.

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (1)

lagi (303346) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517112)

you're right 100%, using Kohana for few months now, won't replace it for anything (using CakePHP for almost 2 years)
and if we talk about shame, PHPStorm PHP IDE puts every other PHP IDE to shame.

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (2, Interesting)

Shaiku (1045292) | more than 3 years ago | (#32515520)

Yeah if you're looking for a PHP framework, skip over CI and start off with Kohana. Kohana is much better and makes a lot more sense for new development. Really more people need to hear about Kohana and not CI.

Re:Code Ignitor's fork KohanaPHP puts CI to shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32516980)

working for few months now with Kohana v3. way better then CakePHP (working for 1.5 years) , never used CI, but think it "puts it to shame" for sure.
also recommend PHPStorm IDE, it's the IDE php developers dreamed of having for years. really.

Viral Marketing (1)

Mondo1287 (622491) | more than 3 years ago | (#32519848)

This review is nothing but spam. Go look at the Amazon reviews. The author is allegedly a 17 year old student, which I'll leave at that.

Re:Viral Marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32520198)

And your point? I know two 17 year olds who graduated with honors from college, and are a damn shade smarter than you or I will ever be.

Having actually READ the book, he knows what he is talking about, and that's all that really matters. This 'student' also wrote the Authentication library for CI, and has been doing web development for years.

Re:Viral Marketing (1)

malakay (900604) | more than 3 years ago | (#32521292)

The age of an author does not necessarily matter when analyzing the quality of the content. You are stereotyping by age, and therefore your argument should be discarded.

Then the Question Becomes (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32523994)

What are the fundamentals of a "Simple MVC Model for PHP?" Then what makes these fundamentals for a "Simple MVC Model for PHP", fundamental?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...