I am new to Zend Framework, but planning to create quite a complex project using it.
I was looking at the view options for Zend Framework. There is one with Zend_View and Zend_Layout and also template engines like Smarty can be integrated with it.
Now I would like to know, do they serve the same purpose? Like I can either use Zend_Layout or Smarty or is it better to use both?
I've worked on two large scale Zend projects. We don't use a separate layout engine, we just use the built in Zend_View.
Layering Smarty on top of Zend wouldn't serve much purpose (imo, would like to see some alternative experiences though)
I have seen lots of benefits of using smarty for nearly 10 years. First of all, smarty restricts template designers to use small set of functions which are related to view only. This will make easier to manage template files and will create a layer of security. Using PHP on view layer allows quick solutions with PHP and can create great mess. Smarty is compiled and there is nearly no performance loss. Syntax is more concise than PHP views. With Smarty 3 "template inheritance" features saved lots of time, which cannot be easily implemented with PHP classes.
Related
What is to be understood by "Fluid powered TYPO3" (as stated by http://fedext.net/) and what are its benefits for the integration?
Are there other modern templating approaches for TYPO3 6.x that would be best practice to switch to now?
I don't understand the different systems that are around at the moment and I need some clarification.
The background of the question, what I am looking for:
Don't use Templavoila
Keep it simple, little coding overhead
That's why I still use markers!
Enable Custom content items in the backend like FCEs in TV
Foment "structured content" approach in TYPO3: predefined inputs and detailed rendering vs. "Anything goes" like in css_styled_content
And what about https://github.com/Ecodev/bootstrap_package ? Is it recommendable?
Although this question is fairly old by now (I didn't see it until now) and you probably already found out more about what Fluid Powered TYPO3 offers:
The features you ask for (TV-style FCEs, low coding overhead and especially the last one which is more regarding the process than the tool) are exactly what Fluid Powered TYPO3 is all about:
We provide simple ways to get page and content templates recognised by TYPO3 and made available to use by the site's content editors.
We use a common API approach (which is built on top of TYPO3's TCA/TCEforms) which you can use in both page and content templates to add custom fields (as an example: create a field to set the color of the site's header or configure a content element to have a blue background, and so on).
We use Fluid which is (as Michael already stated) a superb rendering engine.
But this is just a small part of the possibilities you have with the extensions (currently there are 20 - no, really, 20) which all provide different feature sets: there's the ViewHelper library VHS which you can use with any type of Fluid template, there's fluidpages, fluidcontent and fluidbackend which lets you place template files in a recognised path and made available to use without further hassle, there's view which lets you use overlay paths for plugin templateRootPaths (example: override only one template file from EXT:news without having to copy all template files from EXT:news). There's builder which can generate extensions, ViewHelper unit test classes, test your Fluid templates and more. There's tool which contains a range of Extbase Service-type classes that you can use in your own Extbase plugins. There's fluidwidget which is a great base for complex Fluid Widgets. You've got side utilities like *extbase_realurl* which can generate automatic realurl rules for any Extbase plugin. And there's schemaker which can let you create your own XSD schemas for your own ViewHelpers (or any version of for example fluid itself, or VHS, or flux etc.).
And there is more than this. Simply put, we offer you every tool you need to create every type of site, template or plugin. Our tools have one primary focus: efficiency.
It sounds like a huge mouthful but it isn't as complicated as it seems. Usually you will start off by using three or four of the extensions and their purpose is quite clear: Flux allows you to add the form fields which content editors use to configure content, pages and plugin instances; VHS provides a large number of multipurpose VieWHelpers to use whenever you need more than just those included with Fluid. And then one or both of fluidcontent and fluidpages which are -very- simple in that all they do is allow you to use template files as content elements or page templates.
There is quite a bit to get used to - this is true of any framework - but we spent a lot of effort on making the API the same across the line, which means anything you learn in one context (for example page templates) you can use in others (like content templates and backend modules).
If you want to save time and be consistent when creating content, pages and plugins, Fluid Powered TYPO3 (which is the umbrella name for all those twenty-something extensions) will do exactly that for you.
I can recommend taking a few minutes to read the new tour I published on fedext.net - the URL is http://fedext.net/tour/form-api.html - it primarily speaks to developers who've touched on Extbase and Fluid earlier, but even if you're used to "just" working with TYPO3 the main points should make sense.
And if you need more details than this you are welcome to find us on Github or on IRC (#typo3 on Freenet). We're always happy to help new users.
Cheers,
Claus aka. NamelessCoder
Fluid offers a much cleaner approach of dividing template logic from display logic and controller logic. Your result will be structured much better when using the possibilities fluid and the mentioned extensions like vhs provide (like layouts and partials).
The usage is actually very simple but can still be combined with the oldschool marker approach (you can do things like <f:cObject typoscriptObjectPath="lib.marks.MAIN-MENU"/>). If you need more flexibility in the backend like in TV, you (of course) have to code some things yourself.
The easiest way is to use an extension which is created by modelling it in the backend to fit your custom needs, but you can also adjust the rendering of pages and/or default content elements by using typoscript and the fields given (like pages.layout, header_layout, section_frame and so on).
So you always have the choice between detailed inputs (extbase extension objects) and using the TYPO3 default things like page properties and RTE config in combination with some typoscript magic (css_styled_content).
So as a conclusion I strongly recommend using fluid templates and additional extensions like vhs as they provide a lot of (additional) power and reusable templates while still let you use markers if you want to. Personally, I also prefer to enhance or limit the RTE in the backend in favor of writing too much special code for an FCE-like result.
BTW: There are very good autocomplete features by using the DTDs/XSDs from fedext.net in your IDE which made my template programming much faster (like 25%).
Up to now, I used to use template auto-parser. I like the fact I can modify any element of the template using typoscript, without altering the initial HTML file. I also like the fact that I can render the html template directly in a web browser, filling it with dummy elements to see examples of menus and content elements. Finally, with the new backend templates, i now can place content elements anywhere on a grid, in a way that mimics the real aspect of the website.
I know there is also TemplaVoila. I never took the time to learn it. My feeling is that it is less compatible with some extensions, but maybe I am wrong.
Now, there is fluid, that will be used in the next version of Typo3. While it is clear that it is better using it that using template markers, I don't really understand why I should be better using Fluid than using template auto-parser or TemplaVoila. What I dislike is the fact it requires to modify the html template with special tags, meaning that either the web designer has to know Fluid, or the Typo3 integrator has to modify templates from the designer each time a modification is performed.
My question is: should I migrate form template auto-parser to Fluid for my website template? What are the benefits of using Fluid? Why should it be better? What template system should I use with Typo3?
As long as TypoScript does not support objects, the benefits of FLUIDTEMPLATE over template auto-parser are only a few. So there is no need to migrate.
But IMHO there are some arguments to switch to fluid:
more and more extensions will use fluid, so it will help you to learn fluid
you can use an ide with code-completion for fluid (it is just XML!)
fluid is really powerfull, you can have f.e. if statements which checks for empty content
some day TypoScript will support objects as well
But for extension developement, it is totally different. In an Extension, i would allways prefere using FLUID. You do not have to deal with template things inside your extension anymore. Just pass the data to fluid and things which concern the view will be done in your template.
Whever you choose, it should be something based on Fluid - this will allow you to be extremely versatile and it makes the implementation less important than the template, which is quite good.
I myself am the creator of the "Fluid Powered TYPO3" framework (formerly known as FED) and would of course recommend that you take a look at what this framework can do for you - it's capable of great things, not the least of which is saving you a lot of time while at the same time allowing you to create even more consistent templating for pages and content - and even backend modules.
And we're always happy to help new users. We are currently in the process of improving our documentation, but you can already find many fully up-to-date guides on our Github page - https://github.com/FluidTYPO3 - the repository called "documentation" is the place we will store all the documentation.
You may want to have a look at http://fedext.net http://fluidtypo3.org - especially the "Tour of features" which tries to explain the point of Fluid Powered TYPO3 in as few words as possible. After that, the examples from the documentation will give you a much clearer picture of what Fluid Powered TYPO3 can do for you.
We focus on efficiency always - we've tried to do all the heavy lifting so that you really can just sit down and begin creating page templates. We took a lot of inspiration from TemplaVoila but there is no more re-mapping of content and things like this: when you change your templates, that change is immediately reflected, which makes it very nice to work with in iterations and do things like continuous delivery and -integration.
Hopefully this helps!
Cheers,
Claus aka. NamelessCoder
You could also argue, that adding special tags like
<f:section name="typo-content">
<div id="content">This is where the designer intended content to go</<div>
</f:section>
Could assist your designer while doing a redesign to know where you "mapped" your content elements to. This is neither the case with autoparser nor with TemplaVoila. So if the designer moves stuff around you probably get your templates back and they still work without any modifications.
Is it possible in Zend Framework to contextually autoload a stylesheet based on a unique identifier?
I'd like to load css based on the layout and the action name by first checking if the stylesheet exists then loading it.
Is that possible?
Yes it is possible and surprisingly simple to implement. I have just started trying this for myself in a small project I am working on.
See Andy Baird's blog on this, which also includes the code you need to get you started. He continues it in a second blog which takes the concept slightly further.
He uses the same technique for both CSS and javascript files, so you may want to try it with both too.
I'm using gettext translation adapter in a Zend Framework projekt. But I'm wondering what's the best practise when naming and placing these translation files within my project?
At first I had APPLICATION_PATH/languages/sv_SE.po (and sv_SE.mo)
But then I read about the auto searching features of Zend Framework and started wondering if it would be better to have the languages in subfolders. But the structure APPLICATION_PATH/languages/sv_SE/sv_SE.po and APPLICATION_PATH/languages/en_US/en_US.po didn't feel quite natural. Using array adapters ect it have felt easier to come up with a good naming conventions... But what is the best practise when it comes to using gettext translations in Zend Framework? Is it most common to have all translations in a single file or should one use something like
APPLICATION_PATH/languages/en_US/admin.po
APPLICATION_PATH/languages/en_US/forms.po
APPLICATION_PATH/languages/en_US/othercrap.po
Feels like this apporach might make it tedious when scaning source for strings to translate since one would have to open several files etc.
I ended up using
APPLICATION_PATH/languages/en_US/admin.po
APPLICATION_PATH/languages/en_US/forms.po
APPLICATION_PATH/languages/en_US/othercrap.po
which has worked fine.
I want to start a project using the Scala language. While searching for web frameworks I've found Lift. However, it is not what I was looking for: a web framework that has complete separation of HTML and code. Lift does have some nice features (and a learning curve) but we need to have complete separation of HTML and code. I was hoping to find something like Wicket, Tapestry or Barracuda for the Scala language.
Although it is nice to be able to reuse html templates, it is more important to us to have the HTML templates work as a "static application" mockup. In Tapestry we can just put links in the static templates and use that to have static navigation and a sort of prototype of the application.
So, do you know of any other web framework that is easy to work with the Scala language?
Thanks,
Luis
Here it is I can understand why you might want it pure Scala, but you haven't stated that's necessary, and with the techniques defined within the blog post, and there is another blog which also helps, you should be able to get it close enough to what you desire.
Tapestry 5 has many similarities with Wicket and works very well with Scala. I haven't tried it myself, but Francois Armand has being doing it for some time and he's writing about in in his blog.
Try Context. It is a component based framework written in Java but I have used it with Scala without much difficulties.
Context uses XSL as templating language which forces a sharp separation between logical presentation (DOM-tree) and actual presentation (HTML/CSS/JS).
You can even, with little effort, create prototypes and mocked views by faking the DOM-tree and trying invidual components in different combinations.