On Jan 30, 2008 2:33 PM, Greg Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 30, 2008 12:40 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > just pointing out that the rails guys dont have much wiggle room. > > surely, youre familiar w/ this post: > > http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2007/09/7_reasons_i_switched_back_to_p_1.html > > One article from one developer means what exaclty? Perhaps he wasn't > writing enough lines of code per day to be stay happy using Rails? > > > > Propel still uses XML last I messed with it. Yaml is a lot better for > > > similar tasks. The syntax is a lot smaller which makes it a lot > > > faster than XML. > > well lets see, it only reads the xml when the code is generated, which is > > not > > that often so any slowness of xml is not valid. and last time i generated > > code > > in my project it took like under 5 seconds; boy that xml sure was painful =/ > > Well if all you do is toy projects then XML is fine. > > <user id="babooey" on="cpu1"> > <firstname>Bob</firstname> > <lastname>Abooey</lastname> > <department>adv</department> > <cell>555-1212</cell> > <address password="xxxx">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</address> > <address password="xxxx">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</address> > </user> > > versus the Yaml equivalent: > > babooey: > computer: cpu1 > firstname: Bob > lastname: Abooey > cell: 555-1212 > addresses: > - address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > password: xxxx > - address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > password: xxxx > > > > Perfect example of an advance in web technology. > > perfect example of something that doesnt make much difference. > > The time saved writing Yaml instead of XML makes a huge difference to > me. Similar savings are to be had when comparing PHP to most anything > except Java.
i will concede that typing out the initial schema for my project was cumbersome. however, once an initial schema is in place, its really not a hassle add a table or tweak the existing schema. if you were going to make a point that would have really hit, you should have said that propel doesnt support automatic generation of xml based on an existing db schema. qcodo does this, but then again, qcodo is a complete package, whereas propel is strictly an orm layer. which is what i mostly prefer, blending technologies to suit my needs. so the real drawback id charge propel w/ atm. is the overhead for an existing schema; say you have 100 tables, more even.. now that would be a real pain to build the schema.xml file for. of course you can always use it as an excuse to scrub the cruft off your database schema, right ? ;) -nathan -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
