CodeIgniter Forums
Should we integrate Flysystem - Printable Version

+- CodeIgniter Forums (https://forum.codeigniter.com)
+-- Forum: CodeIgniter 4 (https://forum.codeigniter.com/forum-28.html)
+--- Forum: CodeIgniter 4 Feature Requests (https://forum.codeigniter.com/forum-29.html)
+--- Thread: Should we integrate Flysystem (/thread-65862.html)

Pages: 1 2 3


Should we integrate Flysystem - kilishan - 08-01-2016

FlySystem is a very flexible library that supports multiple filesystems (including Dropbox, S3, etc).

When looking at our helpers, I started thinking that the file, directory, and path helpers should simply be included into one new package that handled it all in an OO way. However, at that point it makes sense to make it easily extendable... and before too long we're duplicating what FlySystem has already done.

For the most point, we're avoiding loading packages for packages sake, but I'm curious what people think about including this one to replace those helpers?


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - waptik - 08-01-2016

That would be great. It'll save time for some of us who are/were looking to get something of a kind in their project.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - josepostiga - 08-02-2016

Definitely!


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - InsiteFX - 08-02-2016

NO,

We should be asking ourselves how many users are really going to be using this?

This would be defeating CodeIgniter simplicity.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - JayAdra - 08-02-2016

InsiteFX, I'm guessing if you weren't using it, you could simply just not load it?

Or when you say "include it", does that mean it would be baked into the core, so it's always loaded? I would think not?


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - Diederik - 08-02-2016

Never heard of it before but FlySystem seems awesome! I think I will use this in my main system, so thanks for the link.

That said, I dont think it belongs within the slim and fast disign CodeIgniter represends. I would just include it myself if needed.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - php_rocs - 08-02-2016

I'm voting yes to this because I think that it would be an awesome addition. I do have a concern about third party dependency but thephpleague appear to be a solid developer group.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - PaulD - 08-02-2016

Seems a bit of overkill so I voted no. I also agree with insiteFX, and would add that many more users want an auth system or template library which everyone would use, but that is ruled out as easy to self implement. Surely the same can be said for this unusual and (IMHO) 99.9% of the time unrequired addition.

As JayAdra said, if it is just a helper you need not use it, but then again, that could be said for lots of things too, like a multi-file upload helper, or an Ajax helper, or an oauth helper.

Laraval 5 is using this - a coincidence? Or have I undervalued this unique tool?

PHP league have TONS of great stuff. How about a helper for omnipay? Or Glide? But all of them can be implemented anyway, relatively easily, so do these really need to be helpers?

I am going round in circles back to no. So I voted no. Sorry to be negative.

Perhaps a better definition, philosophy or reasoning behind the helpers needs to be defined. So Fly System could be measured against these helper objectives. "Helpers, as the name suggests, help you with tasks." is very broad.

Paul.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - kilishan - 08-02-2016

Looks like a tie so far (there's two that commented against and didn't vote.) I'm on the fence, personally.

(08-02-2016, 09:00 AM)PaulD Wrote: PHP league have TONS of great stuff. How about a helper for omnipay? Or Glide? But all of them can be implemented anyway, relatively easily, so do these really need to be helpers?

Paul.

It is a great library, but very flexible and not required for run of the mill small sites. I've used it a handful of times mainly for saving docs to S3, and I've seen a couple of sites that could have benefited from it for Dropbox.

I can empathize with everyone's concern that it's too heavy of a library. The reason I brought it up in the first place, is because it seemed to solve the problem that three of our existing helpers are looking to solve (file, directory, and path) and then apply that to many other useful areas.

Which I guess brings me to another topic: what do people want out of those helpers? What's useful to you? A number of the functions are simple convenience methods that take care of opening and closing a file handle, etc. Others can be mimicked with one or two built-in PHP commands. Others genuinely save a bit of time, though their use might be a bit limited.

So: what do you guys need?


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - albertleao - 08-02-2016

I voted no simply because it seems pretty simple to just add it yourself via composer if you want to. I feel like including this is just opening a can of worms where people are going to want other packages. Why include FlySystem and not include other popular packages like monolog, respect/validation, predis? I also don't understand the logic of including something like FlySystem because there's no point in 'duplicating' it by writing it yourself, yet Guzzle wasn't included and a very basic version of Guzzle was duplicated. Why not include Phinx as a migration tool?

One of the reasons I prefer Codeigniter to the likes of a Laravel is that it's small and very unopinionated.

I think you're playing with fire here by toying with the idea of using outside packages. Once one package gets officially included, there will be a large portion of people arguing on which other ones need to be included.