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


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - kilishan - 08-03-2016

First off, thanks for thoughtful answer.

(08-03-2016, 11:19 AM)albertleao Wrote: I've always seen CI as a framework with the absolute basics to get you going.. I see it as a framework that lies between a Silex/Slim and a Laravel/Cake. If I wanted a framework that has a bunch of stuff already built in and is more opinionated, I'd be using Laravel. There I'd get all the bells and whistles with auth, queues, etc, etc.

That's interesting, because one of the things I've always loved about CI is that it had more of the "little things" (usually the helpers) that were useful than the other frameworks did at the time. Every time I've used another framework I always found little, simple things like auto_typography that didn't have any solution provided in them, and it would be part of what drove me back to CI. Interesting the way different people perceive things.

(08-03-2016, 11:19 AM)albertleao Wrote: Just as it says on the landing page:

"CodeIgniter is a powerful PHP framework with a very small footprint, built for developers who need a simple and elegant toolkit to create full-featured web applications."

As soon as you start adding 3rd party tools, it's no longer 'simple' because you are depending on a 3rd party to keep the code well designed as well. And with the popularity of Composer and Packagist, there should be no reason someone can't implement FlySystem fairly quickly on their own.

I think the way anyone uses "simple" can be fluid. How complex the code is is one way to measure simple. How simple is it to make things do what you want them to is another. I disagree that just because something is third-party means the simplicity of how it's presented to the user has to be reduced. But that's fine.

Your argument also brings up the question, though, of why we provide anything more than what routes, input and output handling, since anyone can bring in the other portions as they see fit. It's a game of balance, I feel.

(08-03-2016, 11:19 AM)albertleao Wrote: Added:
At the end of the day, if you're going to start adding 3rd party packages, we're just slowly moving towards the more 'bloated' frameworks around. While there is nothing wrong with that, I feel that CI would lose a competitive edge. I'd almost be more inclined to have CI have all of its libraries, helpers, and such be packages that we could pull into whatever application we use.

This particular third-party was to replace and enhance existing functionality that previous versions of the framework have had. We're not looking to add them willy-nilly just because.

But that's why I posted to the forums, because I was definitely on the fence about whether the idea was a good one or not.

Thanks for taking the time to share your opinions and concerns. They're all very much appreciated.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - albertleao - 08-03-2016

thumbs up


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - dmyers - 08-04-2016

I voted no because I think we should keep CodeIgniter Simple with few 3rd party dependancies.
I am sure there will be a few but, I don't think the complexity of a file system should be one of them.

BTW great find! I will certainly composer it in IF I actually need it!

DMyers


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - rtenny - 08-04-2016

I also voted no. I always liked CI for its very small footprint. If I ever need FlySystem I can just add it myself.
I have not even heard of it before and I do have worked with S3 and Dropbox. Never needed an extra package to do that anyway.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - PaulD - 08-04-2016

The file helper has a fair few things in it, but path helper only has set_real_path and directory helper only has directory_map in it. Having said that I guess there is good reason to have them in different helpers though, just for naming clarity.

So although I can see why, if you are combining and then expanding the helpers, then why rewrite them all if FlySystem does that and so much more.

I wonder what the results of the poll would have been if there had been a third option, perhaps a 'whatever you think is best is fine by me', or a more simple "Don't know, not sure or don't care". Just a Yes, No is rather polarizing.

Best wishes,

Paul.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - prezire - 08-04-2016

This thing is shiny, but I'd vote NO. It's already available through Composer.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - rakeshkv - 08-10-2016

yessssssssssssssssssssss Smile


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - portaflex - 09-01-2016

Flysystem and The-PHP-League are very cool indeed, awesome. But looking at our classes in CI4 Fly is such a big API, no proportion.

IMHO, for local filesystem we are done with our three helpers, I would merge all of them in one filesystem_helper.php file.

For other implementations like FTP, Amazon, Azure, etc, wise people could develop an optional implementation or plugin or whatever. Regards.


RE: Should we integrate Flysystem - kidino - 09-01-2016

Oh I am late to the poll. But I would've voted NO. Remember how we dropped the Cart library with the reason that CI should a base framework, and not every project is an e-commerce. I am thinking the same for this. It's a cool library though. And this would be easy to add to your project even without it built-in in CI4.

By the way, just started following the CI4 devs. Awesome work on the milestone.