Organizing the Application Controllers

[eluser]Xeoncross[/eluser]
[quote author="wiredesignz" date="1216664871"]You really are clutching at straws to find fault in modules my friend. [/quote]

Well said.

Let me add, I know people are afraid of hypothetical "clashes" in function/class names - but when you work in projects with normal PHP developers they ALWAYS prefix their tables, functions, files, and classes. (not only for this reason but also for "branding" reasons)

Anyway, thanks for the info I will look forward to dissecting HMVC and Matchbox. But I wonder if the CI team might be persuaded to let users define how they want to structure their lib without the need for extra core hacking and stuff. Even extending the APPPATH and BASEPATH vars to include OTHER vars like MODULEPATH and stuff would help.

Or creating a routes config for calling controllers/models/views. i.e:

Code:

Pseudo-code:
$system_route['controller'] = '{BASEPATH}/modules/{CONTROLLER}/{CONTROLLER}/';
$system_route['models'] = '{BASEPATH}/modules/{CONTROLLER}/models/';
$system_route['views'] = '{BASEPATH}/views';

And still setting the default path to the standard CI setup.

[eluser]Xeoncross[/eluser]
[quote author="Colin Williams" date="1216665743"]I guess you just choose the best model and move forward with it, updating old code to match the new API? Regardless, though, you aren't going to run into this situation if you stick to vanilla MVC.[/quote]

Other systems like Zend have this in the bag.

If the system structure was configurable like in other frameworks - then there would be no side effects. No problems with API's or anything. You could just get on with working.

[eluser]Randy Casburn[/eluser]
@Xeoncross -- Yes I see it now thanks. I too implement something similar. wiredesignz Modular Extensions and the similar Matchbox are both nice approaches. For my applications there is just too much unused functionality in those implementations. A simpler approach was needed so I wrote a simple one myself based upon the CI core. I agree with Colin and SSgt Wales here, I like the basic MVC structure provided with CI with only a simple modifications where necessary.

Thanks for the clarification,

Randy

[eluser]Randy Casburn[/eluser]
[quote author="Xeoncross" date="1216666112"][quote author="Colin Williams" date="1216665743"]I guess you just choose the best model and move forward with it, updating old code to match the new API? Regardless, though, you aren't going to run into this situation if you stick to vanilla MVC.[/quote]

Other systems like Zend have this in the bag.

If the system structure was configurable like in other frameworks - then there would be no side effects. No problems with API's or anything. You could just get on with working.[/quote]

Go download Zend and use it then my friend.

Randy

p.s. See you when you get back.

[eluser]wiredesignz[/eluser]
There are many levels of geekdom, there are those geeks who like to write there own geek stuff and share it, and then there are the geeks who can't write or don't share but like to impress/depress others with their super geek knowledge, and then there are the geeks who just get on and do their work by using helpful stuff written by the first geeks.

My point being. Put up or shut up, and let's get on with the job.

[eluser]Xeoncross[/eluser]
[quote author="Randy Casburn" date="1216666552"]
Go download Zend and use it then my friend. p.s. See you when you get back.[/quote]

Well, despite your lack-of-interest in improving CI - I will not switch to Zend just because some people are uninterested in developing better things. CI is awesome - and I hope that people will continue to make it even better by thinking of (and implementing) simple ideas like this!

[eluser]Xeoncross[/eluser]
Hmmm... this subject seems to have gotten off track. The point was not what setup was better/worse. The point was there should be a simpler way to give dev's more freedom in designing their system layout.

HMVC is nice - but it is rather large for simply fixing a problem that should be addressed at the core level. I mean, how hard could it be to implement something into the core (like the small change in post 1) that would end this way1 vs way2 thing?

[eluser]Randy Casburn[/eluser]
that's what hooks were written for. Write a hook and be done with it.

wiredesignz's point was simply this: if you want to propose a change. CODE THE CHANGE, make the proposal with a fully coded solution and let the commuinity vet the code. The discussion has degraded because we're all nerds that want to evaulate the basis of your idea based on the code.

So generate the code and come back here with the code that implements the idea. I suppose it will look a lot like the HMVC designs that already exist.

That is likely the issue here.

Randy

[eluser]Randy Casburn[/eluser]
To further the discussion...

When you actually write the code, then YOU will actually have to discover what all the downstream effects of your "simple" change the core has on the rest of the core. Without someone actually coding and debugging the code sample you provided we can't say what impact that would have on other parts of the libary that may rely on the current file structure with absolute confidence.

That is what wiredesignz means. Go prove it with code and come back.

Randy

[eluser]Randy Casburn[/eluser]
[quote author="Xeoncross" date="1216668244"][quote author="Randy Casburn" date="1216666552"]
Go download Zend and use it then my friend. p.s. See you when you get back.[/quote]

Well, despite your lack-of-interest in improving CI - I will not switch to Zend just because some people are uninterested in developing better things. CI is awesome - and I hope that people will continue to make it even better by thinking of (and implementing) simple ideas like this![/quote]

You must have posted this prior to reading the remaining posts...