Code:
(12:09:25 AM) jlparry: ***************************************************************
(12:09:25 AM) jlparry: Welcome to the CodeIgniter Office Hour(s)
(12:09:25 AM) jlparry: This is Jim Parry, Project Lead
(12:09:25 AM) jlparry: We are here to answer any questions you have. Be nice!
(12:09:25 AM) jlparry: ***************************************************************
(12:10:03 AM) pfote: hey, morning jim
(12:10:14 AM) moveax: morns jlparry
(12:10:15 AM) jlparry: good morning
(12:10:22 AM) jlparry: heya
(12:11:20 AM) slax0r: morning jlparry
(12:11:21 AM) jlparry: first of two "office hours" announced last week ... we'll see if anyone shows up for it :)
(12:11:34 AM) moveax: lets play the old but gold question first, whats the state of CI4. Do you think development is running fine or are there any corner cases?
(12:12:18 AM) jlparry: CI4 is coming along, but slower than we want to see.
(12:13:00 AM) jlparry: there is lots of interest, and lots of questions about its scheduled release date, but not a whole lot of contributors stepping up.
(12:13:11 AM) jlparry: what do you mean by "corner cases"?
(12:14:30 AM) moveax: you answered that allready :) things that are not going as well as you thought
(12:14:59 AM) jlparry: ah ... :)
(12:15:11 AM) xxc_michael: Since CI4 will have composer and in some way now - laravel (the most famous now a days - is considered mvc with composer) how do you plan to differ from what's already famous
(12:16:40 AM) moveax: uh nice, just saw forge the first time
(12:16:46 AM) jlparry: we're not trying to be another L**l :-/ In distinct contrast to them, we don't plan to have everything including the kitchen sink bundled with the framework
(12:16:50 AM) moveax: that could replace some of my scripts
(12:16:58 AM) slax0r: please don't turn CI into laravel...
(12:17:01 AM) slax0r: for the love of god
(12:17:09 AM) slax0r: let the false facades and broken designs die there
(12:17:11 AM) jlparry: and unlike some others, we have no intent of a micro small core, with a million pieces that have to be installed using composer
(12:17:46 AM) slax0r: I'm guessing performance is still your primary "concern"?
(12:18:07 AM) xxc_michael: please let him finish his answer
(12:18:10 AM) jlparry: instead, i believe that CI4 will continue to be lean & simple, but with an awesome plugin mechanism
(12:18:35 AM) slax0r: don't be butthurt just because I called laravel shit
(12:19:13 AM) jlparry: primary concern? i wouldn't say so. I would suggest that the architecture is more important, and that we will have to make it perform as well as it can
(12:19:36 AM) jlparry: the indications so far are encouraging ... i think CI4 should still be competitive, performance wise
(12:20:25 AM) xxc_michael: i'm not - I love CI and i despise Laravel , last year i've been working on it and it's slowly shifted all my projects ... jlparry let's rephrase the question: Couple of months forward CI4 is out - what will your answer to the question "Why should i choose CI4 instead of Laravel 7 be?
(12:21:49 AM) xxc_michael: and i'm asking about vague answers ... like CI4 will definatelly have backwards compability and will support X the next few years
(12:21:59 AM) jlparry: i expect the answer to be something along the lines of "choose CI4 because of its flexibility & performance, without it getting in your way or forcing you to do things a specific way"
(12:22:26 AM) moveax: :)
(12:22:33 AM) jlparry: i don't expect everyone to agree with that :-/
(12:23:18 AM) jlparry: composer was mentioned earlier ... CI4 should be composer installable, or thru a single download for those who don't want to use it
(12:24:43 AM) jlparry: personally, i have been playing with git submodules as a way to incorporate the framework into an app - it is working well for me
(12:25:07 AM) jlparry: so ...git installable instead of composer or tarball :-/
(12:28:34 AM) pfote: git installable sounds good to me
(12:30:23 AM) slax0r: erm, I don't think CI4 will be backward compatible with CI3, I think this was specifically said, was it not?
(12:30:25 AM) jlparry: it is actually turning out very interesting :)
(12:30:32 AM) slax0r: how hard will it be to port existing CI2/3 apps to CI4?
(12:31:07 AM) pfote: not backwards compatible? thats bad
(12:31:10 AM) jlparry: it will be more a rewrite than a port ... thinking "CI4-like"
(12:31:33 AM) slax0r: jlparry: I mean, port user code to CI4, not port CI3 to CI4 :)
(12:31:37 AM) jlparry: it is not intended to be backwards compatible, at the code level, but more at the philosophy level
(12:32:05 AM) xxc_michael: yes it wont but compared to .... laravel each version breaks the previous one - even LTS versions are not easily switchable
(12:32:49 AM) jlparry: my answer stands :) a straightforward port is awkward, with the "services" focus.
(12:32:56 AM) xxc_michael: philosophy level is enough
(12:33:04 AM) moveax: how long will ci3 be supported after the ci4 release?
(12:34:23 AM) jlparry: having said that, the autoloader supports psr4 loading, and classmap loading, and "legacy" loading if a class is not found either of those ways. that should facilitate "porting" a CI3 app somewhat gently.
(12:34:25 AM) slax0r: jlparry: ci4 will be service based?
(12:35:22 AM) pfote: philosophy level, hrm
(12:35:40 AM) jlparry: moveax: CI3 should be around for a few years after the release of CI4
(12:36:20 AM) moveax: that's good
(12:36:48 AM) jlparry: slax0r: not so much "services-based" as having a one-stop shop to locate pieces. https://bcit-ci.github.io/CodeIgniter4/concepts/services.html tells some of the story, but the source code might be more revealing ... https://github.com/bcit-ci/CodeIgniter4/blob/develop/system/Config/Services.php
(12:37:19 AM) jlparry: pfote: philosophy ... "lean, mean useful machine" ... and then expanding on what each of those might mean
(12:39:30 AM) jlparry: the docs need better explanation of how to write an adapter for your favorite "x", and then integrate that with our "services". We have no plans to write 15 "x"s, to keep everyone happy, but to provide adapters for some and directions for bundling your favorites
(12:39:59 AM) jlparry: CI4 remains lean as a result, but super flexible for those who want to go beyond
(12:40:36 AM) jlparry: at the same time, we are doing our damndest to not force a particular "x" on developers
(12:40:54 AM) pfote: yeah but it drops the main reason i use it, compatibility
(12:40:59 AM) jlparry: for "x", substitute authentication, templating, middleware, etc
(12:41:15 AM) slax0r: interesting approach
(12:41:16 AM) jlparry: pfote: compatibility ... as in?
(12:42:13 AM) pfote: backward compatibilty .. upgradability, usable for long term projects
(12:43:15 AM) jlparry: backward compatibility - i agree. upgradability & long term, I think CI4 will rock; and "compatibility" with one's favorite "x" - awesome
(12:43:56 AM) pfote: well, if you break the CI3 to 4 path .. what tells me the 4 to 5 path will be different?
(12:45:08 AM) jlparry: i am not convinced that there will be a CI5, or a path to it ... it is way too early to tell. my gut says that microservices and the "cloud" are are trying hard to eliminate frameworks like what we see today
(12:46:53 AM) moveax: so there will be an upgrade path from 3 to 4? that wasn't clear for me
(12:47:02 AM) Vict0r: MOrning
(12:47:18 AM) pfote: well maybe .. maybe not. i'm used to build projects that run 5, 10, 15 years maybe, so i look for that stuff.
(12:47:18 AM) moveax: we all can live with "change x in models, change y in controllers and it will work in ci4"
(12:48:08 AM) moveax: changes in the filename convention wasnt a problem for anyone here, and since ci4 will php7 only anyone knows that they will have a few things in their codebase
(12:48:09 AM) pfote: didnt sound like that to me moveax .. more like a new framework with "the same philosphy in mind"
(12:48:10 AM) jlparry: an "upgrade path" might be too strong of a label - it is more of a set of mini tutorials ... here's how to convert a CI3 "z" component to the equivalent in CI4.
(12:48:11 AM) slax0r: well, microservices do have their place, but they are certainly not a hamer, and every problem is not a nail
(12:48:15 AM) slax0r: so...
(12:49:11 AM) moveax: so lets call it a migration guide :) i don't fear changes in my codebase as long as they keep trackable and i don't be forced to change my logic
(12:49:13 AM) jlparry: slax0r: totally agreed, but they are ever so "sexy" nowadays, and i think a lot of pointy-haired bosses want to jump on that bandwagon
(12:51:08 AM) jlparry: CI has never tried to be the "sexiest" (unlike some), or the one with the biggest footprint, but instead the most useful
(12:51:14 AM) jlparry: and easiest to learn
(12:51:46 AM) slax0r: I hope you are not planning on implementing an ORM?
(12:51:56 AM) slax0r: existing or new built
(12:51:59 AM) slax0r: s/or/nor
(12:52:05 AM) moveax: as far as i saw in the repo, they don't
(12:52:45 AM) jlparry: moveax: it has been awkward coming up with a "porting" guide, since there haven't been enough of the pieces in place yet, but i think we are getting close to that point. Lonnie is planning a CI4 book, with some complete examples, while I am trying to come up with some mini tutorials
(12:53:38 AM) jlparry: slax0r: we have no plans to implement an ORM, but if someone likes the "x" ORM, it should be easily integratable into their app
(12:53:59 AM) pfote: sounds more like a "python 2 to 3" migration .. well lets see how it turns out, havent looked at anything CI4 related yet
(12:54:05 AM) jlparry: of course, many of the ORMs I have seen have an incredible set of dependencies, rendering them less practical used on their own :-/
(12:54:45 AM) xxc_michael: How easy will composer integration Or other package dependency manager integration be
(12:55:23 AM) jlparry: pfote: if your interest is predominently long-term, then i would wait for the alpha, which should be more settled than the current codebase, and which should have some better guidelines/tutorials
(12:55:37 AM) xxc_michael: you said CI4 won't come with composer integrated - do you plan on integrating something , for that
(12:55:47 AM) jlparry: xxc_michael: composer integration - trivial, already there.
(12:56:01 AM) jlparry: xxc_michael: other package dependency manager? as in??
(12:56:05 AM) pfote: ok
(12:56:47 AM) jlparry: xxc_michael: i said that CI4 won't *have* to be installed using composer, but it *does* support it
(12:57:51 AM) slax0r: other way around would be awkward
(12:59:12 AM) xxc_michael: since composer will be there - i wrongly understood the argument that it will be git installable
(12:59:41 AM) Vict0r: Morning
(12:59:42 AM) Vict0r: :D
(01:06:57 AM) jlparry: All: Are there any other questions or points to raise?
(01:08:50 AM) slax0r: not at the moment
(01:10:29 AM) marcogmonteiro: morning
(01:11:10 AM) jlparry: There will be another session in just under eight hours. I will post the transcript for this session with the event notice on the forum
(01:11:28 AM) jlparry: ***************************************************************
(01:11:28 AM) jlparry: Thank you for having joined us for the CodeIgniter Office Hour
(01:11:28 AM) jlparry: ***************************************************************
Transcript follows:
