> 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. :)
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 10:40 AM, Larry E. Masters wrote:
>> Jamie,
>> 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> 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:
>>>>> Pierre, on 5.4 short open tags will always be enabled: http://marc.info/?t=123964298400001&r=1&w=2
>>>>> William Golden
>>>>> 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
> Why not switch hosts? Using a cloud based solution is both cheap and easy
> to setup.
> On May 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jamie Nay wrote:
> Hi Larry,
> 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. :)
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 10:40 AM, Larry E. Masters wrote:
> Jamie,
> 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> 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 don't write the cheques. I'm not the boss - just a programmer. Our company has about 500 websites hosted with this particular hosting company (which is local), and isn't in a rush to switch. So, it's not a choice - just what I have to work with.
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Jos� Lorenzo Rodr�guez > <jose....@gmail.com <mailto:jose....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Why not switch hosts? Using a cloud based solution is both cheap
> and easy to setup.
> On May 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jamie Nay wrote:
>> Hi Larry,
>> 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. :)
>> - Jamie
>> On 12-05-30 10:40 AM, Larry E. Masters wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>> 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?
Jamie, you could always spin up a new cloud server for 5.4 and leave the
old sites on the current host -- this would offer you a pretty nice
migration plan from 5.2 as you upgrade the older sites to the new codebase
as needed.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Jamie Nay <jamie....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't write the cheques. I'm not the boss - just a programmer. Our
> company has about 500 websites hosted with this particular hosting company
> (which is local), and isn't in a rush to switch. So, it's not a choice -
> just what I have to work with.
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, José Lorenzo Rodríguez <
> jose....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why not switch hosts? Using a cloud based solution is both cheap and easy
>> to setup.
>> On May 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jamie Nay wrote:
>> Hi Larry,
>> 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. :)
>> - Jamie
>> On 12-05-30 10:40 AM, Larry E. Masters wrote:
>> Jamie,
>> 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> 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
> Jamie, you could always spin up a new cloud server for 5.4 and leave > the old sites on the current host -- this would offer you a pretty > nice migration plan from 5.2 as you upgrade the older sites to the new > codebase as needed.
> William Golden
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Jamie Nay <jamie....@gmail.com > <mailto:jamie....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I don't write the cheques. I'm not the boss - just a programmer.
> Our company has about 500 websites hosted with this particular
> hosting company (which is local), and isn't in a rush to switch.
> So, it's not a choice - just what I have to work with.
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 11:07 AM, Cauan Cabral wrote:
>> Jaime, PHP 5.2 EOL is from December/2010, nearly 2 years ago (
>> http://www.php.net/archive/2010.php#id2010-12-16-1 ).
>> I think keeping support don't make sense.
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Jos� Lorenzo Rodr�guez
>> <jose....@gmail.com <mailto:jose....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Why not switch hosts? Using a cloud based solution is both
>> cheap and easy to setup.
>> On May 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jamie Nay wrote:
>>> Hi Larry,
>>> 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. :)
>>> - Jamie
>>> On 12-05-30 10:40 AM, Larry E. Masters wrote:
>>>> Jamie,
>>>> 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 Josďż˝ 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?
>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Graham Weldon
>>>>>>> http://grahamweldon.com >>>>>>> <http://grahamweldon.com/>
>>>>>>> e. gra...@grahamweldon.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:gra...@grahamweldon.com>
>>>>>>> p. (+61) 0407 017 293
>>>>>>> Skype: grahamweldon
>> -- >> Cauan Cabral
>> ----------------
>> Como falar comigo: Google Talk: cau...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:cau...@gmail.com> Skype: CauanCabral MSN:
>> cau...@gmail.com <mailto:cau...@gmail.com>
>> Onde me encontrar: Linkedin
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/cauancabral>Facebook
> Like I said - I'm not in charge. Believe me, I've made these points many > times. But from a business standpoint we've decided to stay put for now.
> What is more likely, actually, is buying our own servers and using a > colocation service. But that likely won't happen for a while.
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 11:13 AM, William Golden wrote:
> Jamie, you could always spin up a new cloud server for 5.4 and leave the > old sites on the current host -- this would offer you a pretty nice > migration plan from 5.2 as you upgrade the older sites to the new codebase > as needed.
> William Golden
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Jamie Nay <jamie....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't write the cheques. I'm not the boss - just a programmer. Our >> company has about 500 websites hosted with this particular hosting company >> (which is local), and isn't in a rush to switch. So, it's not a choice - >> just what I have to work with.
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, José Lorenzo Rodríguez <
>> jose....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why not switch hosts? Using a cloud based solution is both cheap and >>> easy to setup.
>>> On May 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jamie Nay wrote:
>>> Hi Larry,
>>> 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. :)
>>> - Jamie
>>> On 12-05-30 10:40 AM, Larry E. Masters wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>> 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> 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
For what it's worth, Zend Guard doesn't yet support 5.4, and going by
its usual release cycle, probably won't until the end of this year at
the earliest: http://www.zend.com/products/guard/downloads
Probably not an issue for many, but might be a show stopper for some,
and therefore a reason for hosters to not upgrade to 5.4 too rapidly.
Reply-to: cakephp-core@googlegroups.com
To: cakephp-core@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: CakePHP 3.0 and PHP 5.4
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
@Jamie
If you are stuck with PHP 5.2 then it does not really matter to you if
CakePHP 3 will be using PHP 5.3 or 5.4.
Op woensdag 30 mei 2012 20:18:41 UTC+2 schreef Jamie het volgende:
Like I said - I'm not in charge. Believe me, I've made these
points many times. But from a business standpoint we've decided
to stay put for now.
What is more likely, actually, is buying our own servers and
using a colocation service. But that likely won't happen for a
while.
- Jamie
On 12-05-30 11:13 AM, William Golden wrote: > Jamie, you could always spin up a new cloud server for 5.4 and
> leave the old sites on the current host -- this would offer
> you a pretty nice migration plan from 5.2 as you upgrade the
> older sites to the new codebase as needed.
> William Golden
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Jamie Nay
> <jamie....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't write the cheques. I'm not the boss - just a
> programmer. Our company has about 500 websites hosted
> with this particular hosting company (which is local),
> and isn't in a rush to switch. So, it's not a choice -
> just what I have to work with.
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 11:07 AM, Cauan Cabral wrote: > > Jaime, PHP 5.2 EOL is from December/2010, nearly 2
> > years ago
> > ( http://www.php.net/archive/2010.php#id2010-12-16-1 > > ).
> > I think keeping support don't make sense.
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, José Lorenzo
> > Rodríguez <jose....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why not switch hosts? Using a cloud based
> > solution is both cheap and easy to setup.
> > On May 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jamie Nay
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Larry,
> > > 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. :)
> > > - Jamie
> > > On 12-05-30 10:40 AM, Larry E. Masters
> > > wrote: > > > > Jamie,
> > > > 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> 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/
> > > > > 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!
> For what it's worth, Zend Guard doesn't yet support 5.4, and going by > its usual release cycle, probably won't until the end of this year at > the earliest: http://www.zend.com/products/guard/downloads
> Probably not an issue for many, but might be a show stopper for some, > and therefore a reason for hosters to not upgrade to 5.4 too rapidly.
> -- > Regards,
> Miah
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ceeram <c33...@gmail.com> > Reply-to: cakephp-core@googlegroups.com > To: cakephp-core@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: CakePHP 3.0 and PHP 5.4 > Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
> @Jamie
> If you are stuck with PHP 5.2 then it does not really matter to you if > CakePHP 3 will be using PHP 5.3 or 5.4.
> Op woensdag 30 mei 2012 20:18:41 UTC+2 schreef Jamie het volgende: > Like I said - I'm not in charge. Believe me, I've made these > points many times. But from a business standpoint we've decided > to stay put for now.
> What is more likely, actually, is buying our own servers and > using a colocation service. But that likely won't happen for a > while.
> - Jamie
> On 12-05-30 11:13 AM, William Golden wrote: > > Jamie, you could always spin up a new cloud server for 5.4 and > > leave the old sites on the current host -- this would offer > > you a pretty nice migration plan from 5.2 as you upgrade the > > older sites to the new codebase as needed.
> > William Golden
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Jamie Nay > > <jamie....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't write the cheques. I'm not the boss - just a > > programmer. Our company has about 500 websites hosted > > with this particular hosting company (which is local), > > and isn't in a rush to switch. So, it's not a choice - > > just what I have to work with.
> > - Jamie
> > On 12-05-30 11:07 AM, Cauan Cabral wrote: > > > Jaime, PHP 5.2 EOL is from December/2010, nearly 2 > > > years ago > > > ( http://www.php.net/archive/2010.php#id2010-12-16-1 > > > ). > > > I think keeping support don't make sense.
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, José Lorenzo > > > Rodríguez <jose....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Why not switch hosts? Using a cloud based > > > solution is both cheap and easy to setup.
> > > On May 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jamie Nay > > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Larry,
> > > > 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. :)
> > > > - Jamie
> > > > On 12-05-30 10:40 AM, Larry E. Masters > > > > wrote: > > > > > Jamie,
> > > > > 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> 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/
> > > > > > 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
Can someone explain the benefits of namespaces? And do they outweigh any extra code required? Is it just to reduce naming collisions?
One of my fears is that Cake might become like Symfony where in every controller/model I write I had to type 4-8 overly-long namespace lines (that I could never seem to memorize), it felt like such a drag. Love being able to create a new model or controller in Cake in only a matter of seconds by simply declaring the class, a method and often requiring little else (maybe occasionally an App::uses()). Hoping that won't change too much. :-S
*A really simple Symfony example (it's usually worse than this)... Urghh....*
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Mapping\ClassMetadata;use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\NotBlank;use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\MinLength;
class Author{ public $name;
public static function loadValidatorMetadata(ClassMetadata $metadata) { $metadata->addPropertyConstraint('name', new NotBlank()); }}
Yes, the biggest benefit of namespaces is collision, but it helps with many
others things like easier autoload (affecting directly in the performance)
and consistency of your app when you have many classes. An analogy is: Why
do you use folders in your computer? Just because you cannot have the same
file name in the same folder?
About the use of the classes, it will be abstracted by the core in many
situations. For example, you will be able to use short classnames in
configurations like 'components' in controllers. You can use 'MyComp' and
it will referrer to \App\Controller\Component\MyComp automatically.
Some situations will require full name (or using 'use'), mostly when you
instantiate the class directly, like libs.
Juan Basso
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Simon East <si...@surfacedigital.com.au>wrote:
> Can someone explain the benefits of namespaces? And do they outweigh any
> extra code required? Is it just to reduce naming collisions?
> One of my fears is that Cake might become like Symfony where in every
> controller/model I write I had to type 4-8 overly-long namespace lines
> (that I could never seem to memorize), it felt like such a drag. Love
> being able to create a new model or controller in Cake in only a matter of
> seconds by simply declaring the class, a method and often requiring little
> else (maybe occasionally an App::uses()). Hoping that won't change too
> much. :-S
> *A really simple Symfony example (it's usually worse than this)...
> Urghh....*
> use Symfony\Component\Validator\Mapping\ClassMetadata;use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\NotBlank;use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\MinLength;
> class Author{
> public $name;
> public static function loadValidatorMetadata(ClassMetadata $metadata)
> {
> $metadata->addPropertyConstraint('name', new NotBlank());
> }}
> Simon.
> On Monday, 28 May 2012 13:29:21 UTC+10, Graham Weldon wrote:
>> We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>> In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
OK, thanks for the reply Juan. How does it help performance exactly? Is
it because PHP doesn't have to recursively search a library folder because
it's given a full path to a class?
*
Simon East *| * Technical Lead | surfacedigital*
Level 1, 60 Hardware Lane, Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
On 1 July 2012 13:20, Juan Basso <jrba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, the biggest benefit of namespaces is collision, but it helps with
> many others things like easier autoload (affecting directly in the
> performance) and consistency of your app when you have many classes. An
> analogy is: Why do you use folders in your computer? Just because you
> cannot have the same file name in the same folder?
> About the use of the classes, it will be abstracted by the core in many
> situations. For example, you will be able to use short classnames in
> configurations like 'components' in controllers. You can use 'MyComp' and
> it will referrer to \App\Controller\Component\MyComp automatically.
> Some situations will require full name (or using 'use'), mostly when you
> instantiate the class directly, like libs.
> Juan Basso
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Simon East <si...@surfacedigital.com.au>wrote:
>> Can someone explain the benefits of namespaces? And do they outweigh any
>> extra code required? Is it just to reduce naming collisions?
>> One of my fears is that Cake might become like Symfony where in every
>> controller/model I write I had to type 4-8 overly-long namespace lines
>> (that I could never seem to memorize), it felt like such a drag. Love
>> being able to create a new model or controller in Cake in only a matter of
>> seconds by simply declaring the class, a method and often requiring little
>> else (maybe occasionally an App::uses()). Hoping that won't change too
>> much. :-S
>> *A really simple Symfony example (it's usually worse than this)...
>> Urghh....*
>> use Symfony\Component\Validator\Mapping\ClassMetadata;use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\NotBlank;use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\MinLength;
>> class Author{
>> public $name;
>> public static function loadValidatorMetadata(ClassMetadata $metadata)
>> {
>> $metadata->addPropertyConstraint('name', new NotBlank());
>> }}
>> Simon.
>> On Monday, 28 May 2012 13:29:21 UTC+10, Graham Weldon wrote:
>>> We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>> In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
> OK, thanks for the reply Juan. How does it help performance exactly? Is
> it because PHP doesn't have to recursively search a library folder because
> it's given a full path to a class?
> *
> Simon East *| * Technical Lead | surfacedigital*
> Level 1, 60 Hardware Lane, Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
> On 1 July 2012 13:20, Juan Basso <jrba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, the biggest benefit of namespaces is collision, but it helps with
>> many others things like easier autoload (affecting directly in the
>> performance) and consistency of your app when you have many classes. An
>> analogy is: Why do you use folders in your computer? Just because you
>> cannot have the same file name in the same folder?
>> About the use of the classes, it will be abstracted by the core in many
>> situations. For example, you will be able to use short classnames in
>> configurations like 'components' in controllers. You can use 'MyComp' and
>> it will referrer to \App\Controller\Component\MyComp automatically.
>> Some situations will require full name (or using 'use'), mostly when you
>> instantiate the class directly, like libs.
>> Juan Basso
>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Simon East <si...@surfacedigital.com.au>wrote:
>>> Can someone explain the benefits of namespaces? And do they outweigh
>>> any extra code required? Is it just to reduce naming collisions?
>>> One of my fears is that Cake might become like Symfony where in every
>>> controller/model I write I had to type 4-8 overly-long namespace lines
>>> (that I could never seem to memorize), it felt like such a drag. Love
>>> being able to create a new model or controller in Cake in only a matter of
>>> seconds by simply declaring the class, a method and often requiring little
>>> else (maybe occasionally an App::uses()). Hoping that won't change too
>>> much. :-S
>>> *A really simple Symfony example (it's usually worse than this)...
>>> Urghh....*
>>> use Symfony\Component\Validator\Mapping\ClassMetadata;use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\NotBlank;use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\MinLength;
>>> class Author{
>>> public $name;
>>> public static function loadValidatorMetadata(ClassMetadata $metadata)
>>> {
>>> $metadata->addPropertyConstraint('name', new NotBlank());
>>> }}
>>> Simon.
>>> On Monday, 28 May 2012 13:29:21 UTC+10, Graham Weldon wrote:
>>>> We do plan on supporting namespaces.
>>>> In fact Mark has already been tinkering. :)
