Related
I'm net-java developer with some small projects implemented. I'm going to start a new project which is portal with many typical features (posts, comments, messaging, users, catalog, news, galleries, etc).
I believe the best solution would be use any mature CMS (joomla, drupal...) and customize it where needed. The problem is that I'm not familiar with PHP (CMS written on PHP has far better set of features, plugins, community, information I believe) I'm not planning to learn PHP, I want to improve my java-net skills.
So the question for me is:
write all by myself, improving my programming skills and risking to finish my project in relatively long period
on the other hand
I could spend some time learning tools and languages, which I think while, I don't need in the future and more likely finish my project in some shorter time
what would you advise?
Learning another language will not hurt you, and as most of the differences are in syntax and supporting libraries, you would be surprised at how quickly you can pick up a new language.
Your choice should be on what language is best for the task, not simply the one you know.
So, my suggestion is - learn PHP and go with a mature CMS.
A LOT of effort goes into developing a CMS, so writing your own will likely take some time. Put together a project plan and work out how long it would take you to develop something from scratch, then do some research on existing CMS packages and how they fit your needs.
I'm a .NET developer but have used Joomla in the past - it's actually quite easy to put together a website even if you're not too familiar with PHP.
Better yet, find a CMS package in your preferred language - they oughta be some out there.
i.e.
http://java-source.net/open-source/content-managment-systems
Learning new tools is seldom a waste of time. Especially not when it comes to such well known and world wide spread languages such as php. I would say it's best using the tools most suited for the project you're up to, rather than reinventing the wheel.
You should take a good look at your requirements. If you're sure you can get them all from a CMS, that makes most sense. Take a good look at the compatibility and reliability of all components.
Otherwise, you might be better served by a .net or java CMS.
Writing your own CMS without having extensive experience in the current available ones is not going to lead to a good result, except for you learning some programming skills.
If you don't have a "due date" for your project write it by yourself.
Or take a look at http://www.opencms.org/en/ ;)
There are a lot of opensource CMS written in Java ;)
Even if you don't write in PHP again, the benefit of knowing another programming language is going to give you some valuable perspective on net-java.
The task of learning a new language is going to be an asset. Learning to learn something. Identifying what you need to know and how to find the answers is a transferable skill.
Your job will be to complete your project in the most efficient manner with the highest quality output practical. Use the tool that is going to best help you achieve this. The language it's written in should be largely irrelevant.
I need to create a internal website and can't figure out if we should be writing our own, or using an existing framework.
Most of the website will essentially be a front end to a database. We need to have a number of people enter data into forms. We then want to be able to show different views of all this data -- including running small queries (e.g. how many resources do we have with attribute 'X'). As is usually the case with this, we will want to tweak the UI on a regular basis.
There actual data design is not a simple 1:1 mapping of resource to entry. For example, we might track several attributes for one item as the "base set of data" for that item. Then we could have several additional sets of data.
Imagine a recipe application. You might have a recipse for a starter. This could then be referenced by several other recipes that need that same information.
I feel like this is best suited for a general framework (Ruby on Rails, Django, etc), but I wonder if it might not be good for a "traditional" CMS platform like Drupal? I specifically mention Drupal since the people that would develop this have the most knowledge using php and MySql.
I usually lean towards wanting to use an existing platform, but am interested in other people's thoughts. To give you an idea of scope, I would imagine if we wrote this from scratch we are probably talking about 3-5 weeks of development.
Would you recommend writing our own, or using an existing framework? If you would suggest using something that exists what would you recommend?
Would you consider this to be best suited for a straight framework or a straight CMS?
Thanks!
It's possible that Drupal will be a good solution for you, though you'll probably need a few key additional modules like the "Content Creation Kit" (CCK) and "Views".
Unlike other web CMS systems (WordPress, Exponent, phpNuke), Drupal treats your entries as a "pool" of content, from which you pull various subsets for different areas of your site.
There is a lot of documentation for Drupal (almost too much), the biggest problem is finding the piece that's relevant to what you're trying to achieve. Diving on to one of the interactive IRC channels can be a good idea, as the community is quite helpful and is almost always willing to give you a pointer in the right direction.
The power, flexiblity and capability of Drupal is both its biggest strength and weakness - I know it took me a bit of effort to get my head around key concepts, and I'm far from being a Drupal Expert.
One last comment: Having written my own CMS from scratch, which I abandoned in favour of Drupal, I'd suggest your 3-5 week estimate is likely on the light side.
Stay away from Drupal for any site that requires customized functionality. I recently used Drupal for a website at work, and it was VERY difficult to figure out how to get it to do what I wanted it to do. There is a lot of documentation out there, but all of it is unhelpful -- it answers very specific questions about specific issues but does not provide any context as to how you would approach building the site as a whole. If you're a programmer, using a more general framework will probably work better, as CMS's are designed for a specific kind of site, and if you want your site to have non-standard functionality you are going to be fighting the system instead of working with it. If your developers are most experienced in PHP, try one of the PHP frameworks that mimics the architecture of Rails -- e.g. cakePHP or CodeIgniter.
CMSes usually make sense when you have a broad and potentially expanding array of different content types and modes you need to handle. Drupal has literally dozens. Given than you mentioned RoR, it sounds like what you need is more of a MVC style framework. Maybe similar to the sort of thing stackoverflow was built with. .NET an issue for you?
If you are really limited to 3-5 weeks, however, I think a Rails-based strategy makes sense so go with RoR or CodeIgniter
If Drupal can do what you need easily I would say go with Drupal. I don't know much about Drupal though.
Otherwise, what you describe sounds like a data driven web app or more like a reporting app. It sounds like you might have some very specific needs or that users might want very specific needs in the future. That is something hard to get from premade software since you have no idea what users are going to request. Since I'm a programmer I would probably want to build it myself.
Funny you should ask... I just came across this in SD Time's Linkpalooza this afternoon:
Ten free powerful content management systems…
There are at least 4 more mentioned in the comments to this post.
It seems to make little sense to develop a new one with so many from which to choose!
BTW, this is neither a recommendation nor endorsement of any particular CMS.
Treat Drupal as a framework. Core modules + CCK + Views is a good start to build on.
If you're doing something that you might want to expose to other applications, consider the Services module. A lot of interesting things have been done with flex frontends connected to drupal running services with amfphp.
Is there a general procedure for programming extensibility capability into your code?
I am wondering what the general procedure is for adding extension-type capability to a system you are writing so that functionality can be extended through some kind of plugin API rather than having to modify the core code of a system.
Do such things tend to be dependent on the language the system was written in, or is there a general method for allowing for this?
I've used event-based APIs for plugins in the past. You can insert hooks for plugins by dispatching events and providing access to the application state.
For example, if you were writing a blogging application, you might want to raise an event just before a new post is saved to the database, and provide the post HTML to the plugin to alter as needed.
This is generally something that you'll have to expose yourself, so yes, it will be dependent on the language your system is written in (though often it's possible to write wrappers for other languages as well).
If, for example, you had a program written in C, for Windows, plugins would be written for your program as DLLs. At runtime, you would manually load these DLLs, and expose some interface to them. For example, the DLLs might expose a gimme_the_interface() function which could accept a structure filled with function pointers. These function pointers would allow the DLL to make calls, register callbacks, etc.
If you were in C++, you would use the DLL system, except you would probably pass an object pointer instead of a struct, and the object would implement an interface which provided functionality (accomplishing the same thing as the struct, but less ugly). For Java, you would load class files on-demand instead of DLLs, but the basic idea would be the same.
In all cases, you'll need to define a standard interface between your code and the plugins, so that you can initialize the plugins, and so the plugins can interact with you.
P.S. If you'd like to see a good example of a C++ plugin system, check out the foobar2000 SDK. I haven't used it in quite a while, but it used to be really well done. I assume it still is.
I'm tempted to point you to the Design Patterns book for this generic question :p
Seriously, I think the answer is no. You can't write extensible code by default, it will be both hard to write/extend and awfully inefficient (Mozilla started with the idea of being very extensible, used XPCOM everywhere, and now they realized it was a mistake and started to remove it where it doesn't make sense).
what makes sense to do is to identify the pieces of your system that can be meaningfully extended and support a proper API for these cases (e.g. language support plug-ins in an editor). You'd use the relevant patterns, but the specific implementation depends on your platform/language choice.
IMO, it also helps to use a dynamic language - makes it possible to tweak the core code at run time (when absolutely necessary). I appreciated that Mozilla's extensibility works that way when writing Firefox extensions.
I think there are two aspects to your question:
The design of the system to be extendable (the design patterns, inversion of control and other architectural aspects) (http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html). And, at least to me, yes these patterns/techniques are platform/language independent and can be seen as a "general procedure".
Now, their implementation is language and platform dependend (for example in C/C++ you have the dynamic library stuff, etc.)
Several 'frameworks' have been developed to give you a programming environment that provides you pluggability/extensibility but as some other people mention, don't get too crazy making everything pluggable.
In the Java world a good specification to look is OSGi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSGi) with several implementations the best one IMHO being Equinox (http://www.eclipse.org/equinox/)
Find out what minimum requrements you want to put on a plugin writer. Then make one or more Interfaces that the writer must implement for your code to know when and where to execute the code.
Make an API the writer can use to access some of the functionality in your code.
You could also make a base class the writer must inherit. This will make wiring up the API easier. Then use some kind of reflection to scan a directory, and load the classes you find that matches your requirements.
Some people also make a scripting language for their system, or implements an interpreter for a subset of an existing language. This is also a possible route to go.
Bottom line is: When you get the code to load, only your imagination should be able to stop you.
Good luck.
If you are using a compiled language such as C or C++, it may be a good idea to look at plugin support via scripting languages. Both Python and Lua are excellent languages that are used to script a large number of applications (Civ4 and blender use Python, Supreme Commander uses Lua, etc).
If you are using C++, check out the boost python library. Otherwise, python ships with headers that can be used in C, and does a fairly good job documenting the C/python API. The documentation seemed less complete for Lua, but I may not have been looking hard enough. Either way, you can offer a fairly solid scripting platform without a terrible amount of work. It still isn't trivial, but it provides you with a very good base to work from.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Can you suggest some good MVC framework for perl -- one I am aware of is catalyst
The need is to be able to expose services on the perl infrastructure which can be called by Java/.Net applications seamlessly.
I'll tell you right now that Catalyst has by far the best reputation amongst Perl developers in terms of a rapid application development MVC framework.
In terms of "pure" MVC I'm not sure there are even that many "mature" or at least production-ready alternatives.
If Catalyst doesn't seem right to you, then you could build upon the lightweight framework CGI::Application to suit your needs or take a look at some of the lesser known MVC frameworks like PageKit and Maypole.
Since this old thread popped up, I will mention two exciting new additions to the Perl MVC world:
Dancer (CPAN) which is heavily influenced by Ruby's Sinatra, known for being very lightweight
Mojolicious (CPAN) which is written by the original developer of Catalyst to use what he learned there, it has no non-core dependencies, with very modern builtins (HTML5/CSS3/Websockets, JSON/XML parsers, its own UserAgent/templating engine)
(N.B. I have used Mojolicious more than Dancer, and as such if I missed some features of Dancer that I listed for Mojolicious then I apologize in advance)
Another alternative besides the ones already mentioned is Continuity; however, it is (as the name is meant to imply) continuation-based rather than MVC in the typical sense. Still, it’s worth mentioning because it is one of the better Perl web frameworks.
That said, I like Catalyst much better than any of the alternatives. And it’s still getting better all the time! The downside of that is that current preferred coding approaches continue to evolve at a fairly hurried clip – but for the last couple of versions, there has been strong emphasis on API compatibility, so the burden is now mostly mental rather than administrative. The upcoming port of the internals to Moose in particular is poised to provide some excellent benefits.
But the biggest argument in favour of Catalyst, IMO, is the Chained dispatch type. I have seen nothing like it in all of web-framework-dom, and it is a most excellent tool to keep your code as DRY as possible. This couples well with another great thing that Catalyst provides, namely uri_for – a method which takes a controller and a bunch of arguments and then constructs a URI that would dispatch to that place, which it returns. Together, these facilities mean that you can structure your URI space any way you deem right, yet at the same time can structure your controllers to avoid duplication of logic, and keep templates independent of the URI structure.
It’s just brilliant.
Seconding comments made by others: Catalyst (which more or less forked from Maypole) is by far and away the most complete and robust of them. There is a book by Jonathan Rockway that will certainly help you come to grips with it.
In addition to the 'Chained' dispatch type, the :Regex (and :LocalRegex) dispatch methods provide enormous flexibility. The latest app we've built here supports a lot of disparate-looking URLs through just a handful of subs using :LocalRegex.
I also particularly like the fact that you are not limited to a particular templating language or database. The mailing list (and the book) both have a preference for Template::Toolkit (as do I), and DBIx::Class (we continue to use Class::DBI), but you can use pretty much anything you like. Catalyst is marvelously agnostic that way.
Don't be put off by the fact Catalyst seems to require half of CPAN as dependencies. Once you get it up and running, it is a well-oiled machine. It has reached a level of maturity now that once you come to grips with it, you find it 'fades into the background'. You spend your time solving business needs, not fighting with the tools you use.
It does what it says on the tin. Catalyst++
Been playing with Squatting the last few days and I have to say it looks very promising and been fun to use.
Its a micro webframework (or web microframework ;-) and is heavily influenced by Camping which is written in Ruby.
NB. Squatting (& Camping) don't have model components baked into the framework. Here's the authors comments on models... "Models? The whole world is your model. ;-) I've always been ambivalent about defining policy here. Use whatever works for you"
There is also CGI::Application, which is more like the guts of a framework. It helps a person to write basic CGI's and glue bits on to it to make it as custom as they like. So you can have it use hardly any modules, or just about everyone under the sun.
Catalyst is the way to go. There is also Jifty, but (last time I looked), it had terrible documentation.
If you are already aware of Catalyst, then I recommend focusing on it. It is mature, well-documented, and has a very large user-base, community, and collection of plug-ins.
For your problem I would take a look into Jifty::Plugin::REST which allows access to models and actions using various formats.
Let me just say that Jifty doesn't have terrible documentation. However, most of included documentation is API documentation, but there is very low-noise mailing list which has useful tips and links to applications.
Wiki at http://jifty.org/ is another resource which has useful bits.
If your goal is to make video store (my favorite benchmark for 4GLs and CRUD frameworks) in afternoon, it's really worth a look!
Another options is Gantry when used in conjunction with the BigTop module it can reduce the time it takes to build simple CRUD sites.
There is also Clearpress which I can recommend as a useful database backed application. It needs fewer dependencies than Catalyst. We have written a few large applications with it, and I run a badminton ladder website using it.
I have built some applications with Kelp, it's easy to learn and very helpful.
At what level of complexity is it mandatory to switch to an existing framework for web development?
What measurement of complexity is practical for web development? Code length? Feature list? Database Size?
If you work on several different sites then by using a common framework across all of them you can spend time working on the code rather than trying to remember what is located where and why.
I'd always use a framework of some sort, even if it's your own, as the uniformity will help you structure your project. Unless it's a one page static HTML project.
There is no mandatory limit however.
I don't think there is a level of complexity that necessitates a framework. For me whenever I am writing a dynamic site I immediately consider a framework, and if it will save me time, I use it(it almost always does, and I almost always do).
Consider that the question may be faulty. Many of the most complex websites don't use any popular, preexisting, framework. Google has their own web server and their own custom way of doing things, as does Amazon, and probably lots of other sites.
If a framework makes your task easier, or provides added value, go for it. However, when you get that framework you are tied to a new dependancy. I'm starting to essentially recreate a Joel on Software post, so I will redirect you here for more on adding unneeded dependencies to your code:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000007.html
All factors matter. You should measure how much time you can save using 3rd party framework and compare it to the risks of using other's code
Never "mandatory." Some problems are not well solved by any framework. It would be suggestible to switch to a framework when most of the code you are implementing has already be implemented by the framework in question in a way that suits your particular application. This saves you time, energy, and will most likely be more stable than the fresh code you would have written.
This is really two questions, you realize. :-) The answer to the first one is that it's never mandatory, but honestly, parsing HTML request parameters directly is pretty horrible right from the start. I don't want to do it even once, so I tend to go toward a framework relatively early on.
As far as what measurement is practical, well, what are you worried about? All of the descriptions that you list have value. Database size matters primarily for scaling, in my opinion (you can write a very simple app if you have a very simple schema, even if there are hundreds of thousands of rows in the database). The feature list will probably determine the number and complexity of UI pages, which will in turn help to dictate the code length.
There are frameworks that are there for getting moving very quickly with a simple blog, django or RoR all the way to enterprise full-stack applications Zope. Not to be tied to just the buzz world, you also have ASP.Net and J2EE, etc.
All frameworks and libraries are tools at your disposal. Determine which ones will make your life easier for your given project and use them.
I would say the reverse is true. At some point, your project gets so expansive, that you actually get slowed down by the shortcomings of the framework. For sufficiently large projects you may, in fact, be better off developing your own framework, to meet your own needs. I have seen many times where people were held back in the decisions they could make, or the work they could produce, because they were trying to do something that the framework didn't anticipate. And doing these things that the framework doesn't anticipate can be very troublesome. The nice thing about making your own framework, is that it can evolve with your project, to be a help to you system, instead of a hindrance.
So, to conclude, small projects should be use existing frameworks. Large projects should contain their own framework.