I know this has being brought up in internal channel a bunch of times, but I think it is relevant discussing it again. CakePHP 3.0 won't be release for at least the next 6 months in the most optimistic case, which would be the time when people start adopting 5.4 or start shopping for good frameworks supporting it.
CakePHP leaded PHP innovation for many years, but it is not doing so anymore despite it is on par with other frameworks and can be considered better in a lot of different metrics. I vote we should target next release for the current stable PHP version. What do you think?
I agree.
I think the past was a wash of developers and hosts stuck on old PHP versions.
The scenery in terms of developers and hosts has changed dramatically, and PHP support is even more widespread.
Finding 5.4 is dead easy already on hosts, and is supported by all the big players, even MS has their build sorted out.
Cheers,
Graham Weldon
http://grahamweldon.com e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
p. (+61) 0407 017 293
Skype: grahamweldon
On Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 1:12 PM, José Lorenzo Rodríguez wrote:
> I know this has being brought up in internal channel a bunch of times, but I think it is relevant discussing it again. CakePHP 3.0 won't be release for at least the next 6 months in the most optimistic case, which would be the time when people start adopting 5.4 or start shopping for good frameworks supporting it.
> CakePHP leaded PHP innovation for many years, but it is not doing so anymore despite it is on par with other frameworks and can be considered better in a lot of different metrics. I vote we should target next release for the current stable PHP version. What do you think?
most companies web hosting,now are using of 2.5.17 or 5.3, because:
1 - Stable version of WebHost Manager scripts (Sypnl, Direct Admin) do not
support new versions of PHP.
2 - Most customers of these companies, use of scripts which are not
incompatible with the old 5.3. Like jomla 1.5, WordPress,...
And can not force customers to upgrade to.
I consider these tips for choosing which version of PHP.
> I know this has being brought up in internal channel a bunch of times, but
> I think it is relevant discussing it again. CakePHP 3.0 won't be release
> for at least the next 6 months in the most optimistic case, which would be
> the time when people start adopting 5.4 or start shopping for good
> frameworks supporting it.
> CakePHP leaded PHP innovation for many years, but it is not doing so
> anymore despite it is on par with other frameworks and can be considered
> better in a lot of different metrics. I vote we should target next release
> for the current stable PHP version. What do you think?
> I agree.
> I think the past was a wash of developers and hosts stuck on old PHP
> versions.
> The scenery in terms of developers and hosts has changed dramatically, and
> PHP support is even more widespread.
> Finding 5.4 is dead easy already on hosts, and is supported by all the big
> players, even MS has their build sorted out.
> Cheers,
> Graham Weldon
> http://grahamweldon.com > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
> p. (+61) 0407 017 293
> Skype: grahamweldon
> On Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 1:12 PM, José Lorenzo Rodríguez wrote:
> I know this has being brought up in internal channel a bunch of times, but
> I think it is relevant discussing it again. CakePHP 3.0 won't be release
> for at least the next 6 months in the most optimistic case, which would be
> the time when people start adopting 5.4 or start shopping for good
> frameworks supporting it.
> CakePHP leaded PHP innovation for many years, but it is not doing so
> anymore despite it is on par with other frameworks and can be considered
> better in a lot of different metrics. I vote we should target next release
> for the current stable PHP version. What do you think?
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com>wrote:
>> I agree.
>> I think the past was a wash of developers and hosts stuck on old PHP
>> versions.
>> The scenery in terms of developers and hosts has changed dramatically,
>> and PHP support is even more widespread.
>> Finding 5.4 is dead easy already on hosts, and is supported by all the
>> big players, even MS has their build sorted out.
>> Cheers,
>> Graham Weldon
>> http://grahamweldon.com >> e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>> p. (+61) 0407 017 293
>> Skype: grahamweldon
>> On Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 1:12 PM, José Lorenzo Rodríguez wrote:
>> I know this has being brought up in internal channel a bunch of times,
>> but I think it is relevant discussing it again. CakePHP 3.0 won't be
>> release for at least the next 6 months in the most optimistic case, which
>> would be the time when people start adopting 5.4 or start shopping for good
>> frameworks supporting it.
>> CakePHP leaded PHP innovation for many years, but it is not doing so
>> anymore despite it is on par with other frameworks and can be considered
>> better in a lot of different metrics. I vote we should target next release
>> for the current stable PHP version. What do you think?
I'm in favor of aiming for 5.4 as well. We get access to traits which greatly simplify concepts like behaviors. In addition to that Closure::bindTo() is pretty powerful .
I think we can continue to release small enhancement releases on the 2.x series as well to continue to support applications/hosting setups where 5.4 isn't available yet.
On Saturday, 26 May 2012 23:12:49 UTC-4, José Lorenzo wrote:
> I know this has being brought up in internal channel a bunch of times, but > I think it is relevant discussing it again. CakePHP 3.0 won't be release > for at least the next 6 months in the most optimistic case, which would be > the time when people start adopting 5.4 or start shopping for good > frameworks supporting it.
> CakePHP leaded PHP innovation for many years, but it is not doing so > anymore despite it is on par with other frameworks and can be considered > better in a lot of different metrics. I vote we should target next release > for the current stable PHP version. What do you think?
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 8:12:49 PM UTC-7, José Lorenzo wrote:
> I know this has being brought up in internal channel a bunch of times, but > I think it is relevant discussing it again. CakePHP 3.0 won't be release > for at least the next 6 months in the most optimistic case, which would be > the time when people start adopting 5.4 or start shopping for good > frameworks supporting it.
> CakePHP leaded PHP innovation for many years, but it is not doing so > anymore despite it is on par with other frameworks and can be considered > better in a lot of different metrics. I vote we should target next release > for the current stable PHP version. What do you think?
- Cake 1.x as php4 compatible - Cake 2.x as php 5.2
But, time moves on and the changes introduced in 5.4 aren't as (potentially) confusing as the changes introduced in 5.3. It's not necessary to hold back as we did in the past, it makes sense to me to aim for the current version of php by the time 3.x is released, and not restrict ourselves to "just" the benefits of namespaces.
+1 for PHP5.4+ compatibility.
Traits are something that would make both performance boost and
implementation simple for things like Behaviors, even though there are
still some flaws in the implementation.
Th array syntax would make the core code more readable too imo. And
PHP5.4 also brings high performance improvements.
Pierre
On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would be the
short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would be of
interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __() signature
in 2.0.
On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very verbose,
which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP short tag
would reduce this feeling.
Pierre
On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
> +1 for PHP 5.4.
> Rackspace Cloud Sites currently only support 5.3 but they plan to have 5.4
> available in Q3 of 2012. So yay.
> Kyle
> On Saturday, May 26, 2012 8:12:49 PM UTC-7, José Lorenzo wrote:
>> I know this has being brought up in internal channel a bunch of times,
>> but I think it is relevant discussing it again. CakePHP 3.0 won't be
>> release for at least the next 6 months in the most optimistic case, which
>> would be the time when people start adopting 5.4 or start shopping for good
>> frameworks supporting it.
>> CakePHP leaded PHP innovation for many years, but it is not doing so
>> anymore despite it is on par with other frameworks and can be considered
>> better in a lot of different metrics. I vote we should target next release
>> for the current stable PHP version. What do you think?
> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would be the
> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would be of
> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __() signature
> in 2.0.
> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very verbose,
> which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP short tag
> would reduce this feeling.
> Pierre
> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
> > Cheers,
> > Graham Weldonhttp://grahamweldon.com > > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
> > p. (+61) 0407 017 293
> > Skype: grahamweldon
> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem <cont...@thiagobelem.net
> >wrote:
> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them, but what's your thoughts
> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan about supporting it?
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin <cont...@pierre-martin.fr>wrote:
>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would be the
>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would be of
>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __() signature
>> in 2.0.
>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very verbose,
>> which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP short tag
>> would reduce this feeling.
>> Pierre
>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>> > Cheers,
>> > Graham Weldonhttp://grahamweldon.com >> > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>> > p. (+61) 0407 017 293
>> > Skype: grahamweldon
>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem <cont...@thiagobelem.net
>> >wrote:
>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them, but what's your thoughts
>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan about supporting it?
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin <cont...@pierre-martin.fr> wrote:
> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would be the
> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would be of
> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __() signature
> in 2.0.
> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very verbose,
> which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP short tag
> would reduce this feeling.
> Pierre
> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
> > Cheers,
> > Graham Weldonhttp://grahamweldon.com > > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
> > p. (+61) 0407 017 293
> > Skype: grahamweldon
> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem <cont...@thiagobelem.net>wrote:
> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them, but what's your thoughts
> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan about supporting it?
> -- > Cheers,
> Graham Weldon
> http://grahamweldon.com > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
> p. (+61) 0407 017 293
> Skype: grahamweldon
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin <cont...@pierre-martin.fr
>> > wrote:
>>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would be the
>>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
>>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would be of
>>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __() signature
>>> in 2.0.
>>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very verbose,
>>> which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
>>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP short tag
>>> would reduce this feeling.
>>> Pierre
>>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
>>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Graham Weldonhttp://grahamweldon.com >>> > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>>> > p. (+61) 0407 017 293
>>> > Skype: grahamweldon
>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem <
>>> cont...@thiagobelem.net>wrote:
>>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them, but what's your
>>> thoughts
>>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan about supporting it?
> --
> Cheers,
> Graham Weldon
> http://grahamweldon.com > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
> p. (+61) 0407 017 293
I am pretty much excited that the decision was made for PHP 5.4.
Being a client-oriented service provider it got harder and harder convincing people to choose CakePHP over other frameworks.
This will most likely change for the good with this decision!
Regards,
Thomas
Am 30.05.2012 01:58, schrieb Jos� Lorenzo Rodr�guez:
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin
>> <cont...@pierre-martin.fr <mailto:cont...@pierre-martin.fr>> wrote:
>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would
>> be the
>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would
>> be of
>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __()
>> signature
>> in 2.0.
>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very
>> verbose,
>> which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP
>> short tag
>> would reduce this feeling.
>> Pierre
>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com
>> <mailto:gra...@grahamweldon.com>> wrote:
>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem
>> <cont...@thiagobelem.net <mailto:cont...@thiagobelem.net>>wrote:
>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them, but what's
>> your thoughts
>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan about
>> supporting it?
> I am pretty much excited that the decision was made for PHP 5.4.
> Being a client-oriented service provider it got harder and harder
> convincing people to choose CakePHP over other frameworks.
> This will most likely change for the good with this decision!
> Regards,
> Thomas
> Am 30.05.2012 01:58, schrieb José Lorenzo Rodríguez:
> So 5.4 it is!
> I think we'll make an official announcement right after releasing 2.2
> stable :)
> Thanks all for contributing
> On May 29, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Graham Weldon wrote:
> I'm pretty sure thats what he was getting at.
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, William Golden <egdelw...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin <cont...@pierre-martin.fr
>> > wrote:
>>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would be the
>>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
>>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would be of
>>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __() signature
>>> in 2.0.
>>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very verbose,
>>> which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
>>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP short tag
>>> would reduce this feeling.
>>> Pierre
>>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
>>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Graham Weldonhttp://grahamweldon.com >>> > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>>> > p. (+61) 0407 017 293 <%28%2B61%29%200407%20017%20293>
>>> > Skype: grahamweldon
>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem <
>>> cont...@thiagobelem.net>wrote:
>>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them, but what's your
>>> thoughts
>>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan about supporting it?
> --
> Cheers,
> Graham Weldon
> http://grahamweldon.com > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
> p. (+61) 0407 017 293
I don't know if we'll start off changing every array in all of cakephp as there are ~29000 uses of array(. That alone is a huge amount of work, and I'd rather we focus on actual changes :)
On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 09:05:30 UTC-4, Daniel Pakuschewski wrote:
> Wow good news \o/
> Short array syntax s2
> Daniel Luiz Pakuschewski
> Desenvolvedor Web
> (w) www.danielpk.com.br > (c) 41 9630 0293
> 2012/5/30 Thomas Ploch <profipl...@googlemail.com>
>> I am pretty much excited that the decision was made for PHP 5.4.
>> Being a client-oriented service provider it got harder and harder >> convincing people to choose CakePHP over other frameworks.
>> This will most likely change for the good with this decision!
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>> Am 30.05.2012 01:58, schrieb José Lorenzo Rodríguez:
>> So 5.4 it is!
>> I think we'll make an official announcement right after releasing 2.2 >> stable :)
>> Thanks all for contributing
>> On May 29, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Graham Weldon wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure thats what he was getting at.
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, William Golden <egdelw...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin <
>>> cont...@pierre-martin.fr> wrote:
>>>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would be the
>>>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>>>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
>>>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would be of
>>>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __() signature
>>>> in 2.0.
>>>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very verbose,
>>>> which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
>>>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP short tag
>>>> would reduce this feeling.
>>>> Pierre
>>>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
>>>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> > Graham Weldonhttp://grahamweldon.com >>>> > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>>>> > p. (+61) 0407 017 293
>>>> > Skype: grahamweldon
>>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem <
>>>> cont...@thiagobelem.net>wrote:
>>>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them, but what's your >>>> thoughts
>>>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan about supporting it?
>> -- >> Cheers,
>> Graham Weldon
>> http://grahamweldon.com >> e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>> p. (+61) 0407 017 293
I'd like to know which mainstream hosting providers offer 5.4. I've yet to come across it... 5.3 is just getting 'out there' as far as default PHP versions go. I know a lot of people who will be sticking with Cake 2 if 3 requires 5.4. Oh well.
> I don't know if we'll start off changing every array in all of cakephp > as there are ~29000 uses of array(. That alone is a huge amount of > work, and I'd rather we focus on actual changes :)
> -Mark
> On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 09:05:30 UTC-4, Daniel Pakuschewski wrote:
> 2012/5/30 Thomas Ploch <profipl...@googlemail.com
> <mailto:profipl...@googlemail.com>>
> I am pretty much excited that the decision was made for PHP 5.4.
> Being a client-oriented service provider it got harder and
> harder convincing people to choose CakePHP over other frameworks.
> This will most likely change for the good with this decision!
> Regards,
> Thomas
> Am 30.05.2012 01:58, schrieb José Lorenzo Rodríguez:
>> So 5.4 it is!
>> I think we'll make an official announcement right after
>> releasing 2.2 stable :)
>> Thanks all for contributing
>> On May 29, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Graham Weldon wrote:
>>> I'm pretty sure thats what he was getting at.
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, William Golden
>>> <egdelw...@gmail.com <mailto:egdelw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin
>>> <cont...@pierre-martin.fr
>>> <mailto:cont...@pierre-martin.fr>> wrote:
>>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards
>>> 5.3 would be the
>>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as
>>> its templating
>>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php
>>> echo" would be of
>>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of
>>> the __() signature
>>> in 2.0.
>>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views
>>> very verbose,
>>> which is one of the reasons why developers are
>>> moving towards
>>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with
>>> the PHP short tag
>>> would reduce this feeling.
>>> Pierre
>>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon
>>> <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
>>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem
>>> <cont...@thiagobelem.net>wrote:
>>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them,
>>> but what's your thoughts
>>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan
>>> about supporting it?
We are not abandoning 2.x and we will back port anything we can to 2.x.
With the cost of cloud servers running very close to shared hosting you can
configure PHP any version you like, this is what we do for all of the
project apps. I will get some information from a few hosting providers and
even try to work on some special pricing for CakePHP developers who want to
take advantage of them.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Jamie Nay <jamie....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to know which mainstream hosting providers offer 5.4. I've yet
> to come across it... 5.3 is just getting 'out there' as far as default PHP
> versions go. I know a lot of people who will be sticking with Cake 2 if 3
> requires 5.4. Oh well.
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 10:20 AM, mark_story wrote:
> I don't know if we'll start off changing every array in all of cakephp as
> there are ~29000 uses of array(. That alone is a huge amount of work, and
> I'd rather we focus on actual changes :)
> -Mark
> On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 09:05:30 UTC-4, Daniel Pakuschewski wrote:
>> Wow good news \o/
>> Short array syntax s2
>> Daniel Luiz Pakuschewski
>> Desenvolvedor Web
>> (w) www.danielpk.com.br >> (c) 41 9630 0293
>> 2012/5/30 Thomas Ploch <profipl...@googlemail.com>
>>> I am pretty much excited that the decision was made for PHP 5.4.
>>> Being a client-oriented service provider it got harder and harder
>>> convincing people to choose CakePHP over other frameworks.
>>> This will most likely change for the good with this decision!
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas
>>> Am 30.05.2012 01:58, schrieb José Lorenzo Rodríguez:
>>> So 5.4 it is!
>>> I think we'll make an official announcement right after releasing 2.2
>>> stable :)
>>> Thanks all for contributing
>>> On May 29, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Graham Weldon wrote:
>>> I'm pretty sure thats what he was getting at.
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, William Golden <egdelw...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin <
>>>> cont...@pierre-martin.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards 5.3 would be the
>>>>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>>>>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as its templating
>>>>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php echo" would be of
>>>>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of the __() signature
>>>>> in 2.0.
>>>>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes views very verbose,
>>>>> which is one of the reasons why developers are moving towards
>>>>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with the PHP short tag
>>>>> would reduce this feeling.
>>>>> Pierre
>>>>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
>>>>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>>>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>>>>> > Cheers,
>>>>> > Graham Weldonhttp://grahamweldon.com >>>>> > e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>>>>> > p. (+61) 0407 017 293
>>>>> > Skype: grahamweldon
>>>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem <
>>>>> cont...@thiagobelem.net>**wrote:
>>>>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them, but what's your
>>>>> thoughts
>>>>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan about supporting it?
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Graham Weldon
>>> http://grahamweldon.com >>> e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>>> p. (+61) 0407 017 293
I think that by the time Cake 3 is born into arms of alpha, there will be a lot of hosters as well as self-compiled root servers out there which will scream out the name CakePHP very loud ;-)
As a side note:
Closures can now use the object scope 'this' as well, which makes it one of the best changes together with traits.
> I'd like to know which mainstream hosting providers offer 5.4. I've > yet to come across it... 5.3 is just getting 'out there' as far as > default PHP versions go. I know a lot of people who will be sticking > with Cake 2 if 3 requires 5.4. Oh well.
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 10:20 AM, mark_story wrote:
>> I don't know if we'll start off changing every array in all of >> cakephp as there are ~29000 uses of array(. That alone is a huge >> amount of work, and I'd rather we focus on actual changes :)
>> -Mark
>> On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 09:05:30 UTC-4, Daniel Pakuschewski wrote:
>> 2012/5/30 Thomas Ploch <profipl...@googlemail.com
>> <mailto:profipl...@googlemail.com>>
>> I am pretty much excited that the decision was made for PHP 5.4.
>> Being a client-oriented service provider it got harder and
>> harder convincing people to choose CakePHP over other frameworks.
>> This will most likely change for the good with this decision!
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>> Am 30.05.2012 01:58, schrieb José Lorenzo Rodríguez:
>>> So 5.4 it is!
>>> I think we'll make an official announcement right after
>>> releasing 2.2 stable :)
>>> Thanks all for contributing
>>> On May 29, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Graham Weldon wrote:
>>>> I'm pretty sure thats what he was getting at.
>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, William Golden
>>>> <egdelw...@gmail.com <mailto:egdelw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin
>>>> <cont...@pierre-martin.fr
>>>> <mailto:cont...@pierre-martin.fr>> wrote:
>>>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project towards
>>>> 5.3 would be the
>>>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>>>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP as
>>>> its templating
>>>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over "<?php
>>>> echo" would be of
>>>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change of
>>>> the __() signature
>>>> in 2.0.
>>>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes
>>>> views very verbose,
>>>> which is one of the reasons why developers are
>>>> moving towards
>>>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views with
>>>> the PHP short tag
>>>> would reduce this feeling.
>>>> Pierre
>>>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon
>>>> <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
>>>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago Belem
>>>> <cont...@thiagobelem.net>wrote:
>>>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use them,
>>>> but what's your thoughts
>>>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan
>>>> about supporting it?
I appreciate it. As much as I'd love to do bleeding edge stuff, both my workplace and my freelance projects deal with hosts who will likely not move to 5.4 anytime soon. In particular, at my work we have over 100 Cake-based websites (using a CMS we developed), growing almost daily. The host we use for all of these sites runs 5.2 and likely won't even be on 5.3 for a couple of years. So I envy all of you who get to work with 5.3 and 5.4. :)
> We are not abandoning 2.x and we will back port anything we can to > 2.x. With the cost of cloud servers running very close to shared > hosting you can configure PHP any version you like, this is what we do > for all of the project apps. I will get some information from a few > hosting providers and even try to work on some special pricing for > CakePHP developers who want to take advantage of them.
> -- > Larry E. Masters
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Jamie Nay <jamie....@gmail.com > <mailto:jamie....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I'd like to know which mainstream hosting providers offer 5.4.
> I've yet to come across it... 5.3 is just getting 'out there' as
> far as default PHP versions go. I know a lot of people who will be
> sticking with Cake 2 if 3 requires 5.4. Oh well.
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 10:20 AM, mark_story wrote:
>> I don't know if we'll start off changing every array in all of
>> cakephp as there are ~29000 uses of array(. That alone is a huge
>> amount of work, and I'd rather we focus on actual changes :)
>> -Mark
>> On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 09:05:30 UTC-4, Daniel Pakuschewski wrote:
>> 2012/5/30 Thomas Ploch <profipl...@googlemail.com
>> <mailto:profipl...@googlemail.com>>
>> I am pretty much excited that the decision was made for
>> PHP 5.4.
>> Being a client-oriented service provider it got harder
>> and harder convincing people to choose CakePHP over other
>> frameworks.
>> This will most likely change for the good with this decision!
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>> Am 30.05.2012 01:58, schrieb Jos� Lorenzo Rodr�guez:
>>> So 5.4 it is!
>>> I think we'll make an official announcement right after
>>> releasing 2.2 stable :)
>>> Thanks all for contributing
>>> On May 29, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Graham Weldon wrote:
>>>> I'm pretty sure thats what he was getting at.
>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, William Golden
>>>> <egdelw...@gmail.com <mailto:egdelw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Pierre Martin
>>>> <cont...@pierre-martin.fr
>>>> <mailto:cont...@pierre-martin.fr>> wrote:
>>>> Another (smaller) advantage for the project
>>>> towards 5.3 would be the
>>>> short syntax "<?=" for PHP opening tags.
>>>> Since the framework made the choice to use PHP
>>>> as its templating
>>>> language, promoting the use of "<?=" over
>>>> "<?php echo" would be of
>>>> interest. It is imo a logic suite to the change
>>>> of the __() signature
>>>> in 2.0.
>>>> On a daily basis having PHP for template makes
>>>> views very verbose,
>>>> which is one of the reasons why developers are
>>>> moving towards
>>>> templating engines such as Twig. Baking views
>>>> with the PHP short tag
>>>> would reduce this feeling.
>>>> Pierre
>>>> On May 28, 5:29 am, Graham Weldon
>>>> <gra...@grahamweldon.com> wrote:
>>>> > We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>>> > In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
>>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Thiago
>>>> Belem <cont...@thiagobelem.net>wrote:
>>>> > > I'm not saying that you guys should use
>>>> them, but what's your thoughts
>>>> > > about namespaces in CakePHP? There's a plan
>>>> about supporting it?
