CodeIgniter 2.0

[eluser]Unknown[/eluser]
Does anyone know the rationale behind changing Model to CI_Model? Also, along the same lines, if you are changing Model to CI_Model, why not Controller to CI_Controller?

Why was xss_clean removed from the input class? Now you have to use security->xss_clean, which breaks old code that uses it from the input class.

Also, how active is CodeIgniter development?

[eluser]treeface[/eluser]
I'm not a CI dev, but I've encountered several cases where it would be useful to implement a Model extension simply using MY_Model without having to load it explicitly, whereas in CI 1.x you have to load it as a library. If I'm not mistaken, CI 2.0 will also be changing its Controller class to CI_Controller (not sure about this...read something about it on Phil Sturgeon's website a while back that indicated it would be so) so you can easily extend it without having to load it explicitly.

Not sure about the input library changes...I haven't played with 2.0 just yet.

[eluser]treeface[/eluser]
I realize now (after downloading 2.0 from bitbucket) that the Controller is, indeed, still called Controller. I'd be interested if any EllisLabs guys could comment on the reasoning behind this.

[eluser]InsiteFX[/eluser]
To make it more consistant with the codeigniter core.
If you look at the other core libraries you will see they
use CI_

Controller is still up in the air they may still change
it to CI_Controller.

InsiteFX

[eluser]treeface[/eluser]
Does anybody know what the arguments are surrounding the renaming of the Controller class?

[eluser]Jelmer[/eluser]
http://bitbucket.org/ellislab/codeignite...d-of-model (answer #5 from Derek Jones)

[eluser]treeface[/eluser]
Thanks for the link, Jelmer. I just updated that issue to "open" and added my comments because I didn't really see any enumeration of the pros and cons, only a statement that there are pros and cons. I imagine the cons mostly revolve around the transition from Controller to CI_Controller and the slightly uglier "extends CI_Controller" compared to "extends Controller", but I'd be very interested to hear of any others. Also, I'm not fully versed on the pros aside from (I imagine) core extensions to the controller playing nicer with the current CI_ --> MY_ scheme.

[eluser]Unknown[/eluser]
anybody knows how near CI 2.0 stable release is????.

[eluser]Phil Sturgeon[/eluser]
[quote author="treeface" date="1285631349"]Thanks for the link, Jelmer. I just updated that issue to "open" and added my comments because I didn't really see any enumeration of the pros and cons, only a statement that there are pros and cons. I imagine the cons mostly revolve around the transition from Controller to CI_Controller and the slightly uglier "extends CI_Controller" compared to "extends Controller", but I'd be very interested to hear of any others. Also, I'm not fully versed on the pros aside from (I imagine) core extensions to the controller playing nicer with the current CI_ --> MY_ scheme.[/quote]

Please don't go around opening up tickets at will because you do not fully understand the reasoning. Derek put the ticket on hold while working on other things and this decision has not been finalized.

The reasoning was to make Model more consistent with other core classes as they all start with CI_. This has no effect whatsoever to MY_ classes as it's just as easy either way.

The change to CI_Controller is being considered but at the end of the day its just a find and replace.

The pro's and con's are as simple as:

Pro's

Uniform names for classes
It frees up the use of Model and Controller for other classes (libraries, controllers, etc for whatever reason)

Con's

An extra upgrade step.
Find and replace is not always your friend on jobs like this.
It doesn't look quite as neat.

Just keep an eye on the CodeIgniter BitBucket RSS Feed and when they change it grab it and upgrade your controllers. Otherwise hold tight and use as it is. There's no need to run around changing things on tickets as we all get a bunch of emails every time you do.

[quote author="true_gunner" date="1285682406"]anybody knows how near CI 2.0 stable release is????.[/quote]

It's stable enough.

[eluser]treeface[/eluser]
Hi Phil,

Sorry about the ticket change and thanks for letting me know how bitbucket's ticketing system works. Thanks, too, for listing out the pros and cons of the changes to CI_Controller.

However, try to keep in mind that EllisLab doesn't exactly make it obvious to newer users where and how to frame these sorts of questions. If I followed that chain of messages correctly, somebody named Mario Ricalde changed the ticket to "on hold", not Derek. He used this reasoning:

<i>Changing to on hold, Ellislab needs to review the changeset from Dan Horrigan. And decide how to procede with this issue.</i>

This follows a series of posts where Dan Horrigan (presumably) made the changes required to move it to CI_Controller instead of Controller, after which user <b>ellislab</b> stated that an evaluation would likely be made "in the coming weeks". Then the thread died for 5 months with no information about where it might have led, no links to any discussions on the forums or bitbucket..just nothing. Then the OP of this thread started the discussion in here (which I found via Google), to which no CI devs appeared to respond, leaving users like me with only one apparent route to reopen this issue.

I apologize for causing logistical headaches for those on the mailing list for that ticket. Still, it seems surprising that an issue that appears so straightforward would require such a long period of evaluation, especially when another user appears to have already forked CI and added the requisite changes.