NYCPHP Meetup

[Phil Duffy]

My motivation for trying Seagull was to create a Model-View-Controller (MVC)
foundation for a system that I expected to grow substantially over time (I
accept the counter-MVC argument that MVC is overkill for simple
applications).  The cause of my fanaticism was a bad experience with
developing an otherwise advanced architecture for the client-server world
that didn't migrate easily to the web because of inappropriate code
segregation.

In the new system, it will be the database that characterizes the next layer
of the system, not content management.  There are content management plans
for the system, and these are based upon my experience with Documentum.
However, data structure, and not CMS considerations will drive the system.

Seagull comes with some very simple content management features, but all in
separate Seagull modules that you are free to discard.  I could not say that
CMS constrains Seagull in any way.

I have copied this to the Seagull list so that other Seagull developers can
offer their impressions.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: talk-bounces at lists.nyphp.org [mailto:talk-bounces at lists.nyphp.org] On
Behalf Of Eric K.
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:53 PM
To: NYPHP Talk
Subject: Re: [nycphp-talk] Question about frameworks

I think the tie in is simply because, at the end of the day, when you
are done designing coding and testing (the part that the framework is
most useful for), most php applications will need to spit out
html/images/etc (content) which warrants the need for an
html/images/etc (content) management system of some kind...

I'd say install/try out the framework and ignore as much of the CMS as
you need to, to get your app done. The benefits of reusing the
framework code and the inherent coding methods will be an improvement
from coding the straight PHP way.

On 6/29/05, Anthony Papillion <papillion at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>  
>  In light of today's discussions about frameworks I think now is a good
time
> for me to ask a question that's prevented me from using frameworks in the
> past and doing everything the "straight PHP" way:
>  
>  It seems that all of the frameworks I've run across are somehow tied to
> CMS's. In my mind, and perhaps wrongly, this limits their usefulness to
> creating CMS software. What about people who are creating other type of
> software? And does it also mean that one has to install a complete CMS
just
> to have acess to the API's? This seems like a lot of overkill to me.
>  
>  Perhaps, and probably, I am wrong. I am very eager to work with a
framework
> since they really seem to eliminate a lot of work. Can anyone tae a little
> time to shed some light on these issues for me?
>  
>  Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Anthony M. Papillion
> Quality Technical Services and Support
> Phone: (918) 926-0139
> Email:  papillion at gmail.com 
> _______________________________________________
> New York PHP Talk Mailing List
> AMP Technology
> Supporting Apache, MySQL and PHP
> http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
> http://www.nyphp.org
> 
>
_______________________________________________
New York PHP Talk Mailing List
AMP Technology
Supporting Apache, MySQL and PHP
http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
http://www.nyphp.org