|
|
Posted by shimmyshack on 03/25/07 22:26
On 25 Mar, 23:37, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> shimmyshack wrote:
> > On 25 Mar, 21:37, Mary Pegg <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> shimmyshack wrote:
> >>> if (isset($c['s']['a5'])) echo htmlentities($c['s']['a1'])."<br>";
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>> if (isset($c['s']['a5'])) echo htmlentities($c['s']['a5'])."<br>";
> >>> that's alot of work for sake of sticking with what _you_ find more
> >>> readable
> >> So what you're really arguing in favour of is wrapping it up in a
> >> function, which is what I've done. But the question is whether it's
> >> worth creating a for loop to run through a1 to a5 rather than simply
> >> calling each by name.
>
> >>> all the chages above and more are so simple with Rani's method. If you
> >> No, they're simple if it's wrapped up in a function. Whether or not
> >> a1 to a5 get generated by a for loop I've still got b, c, d, e, f (etc)
> >> to deal with. NB I'm using these as symbols - in reality they are the
> >> field names from a database, so no getting smart and suggesting that I
> >> can generate b to f automagically. OTOH I could stick the field names
> >> in an array and step through the array. This might be worth doing.
>
> >>> can't take good advice don't ask for it.
> >> I know this is Usenet but you don't *have* to be rude and abrasive.
>
> >> --
> >> "Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
> >> be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".
>
> > it's not rude or abrasive, to notice you don't take advice and say so,
> > perhaps a little bruusque though, and I apologise if I made you cross.
> > FYI, I work with annoyingly complex database tables whose structure
> > changes as my client changes their requirements, to stop this kind of
> > hard coded approach which started to cost me too much time, I use
> > DESCRIBE `tablename`, and SHOW FULL COLUMNS FROM `tablename` which can
> > then be used to get the comments, fieldnames etc... then using a reg
> > exp on bool enum varchar() int() and so on to get metadata about the
> > table which is then pumped into the application.
> > In this way you can use general methods to print and parse data
> > without ever having to hard code the fieldnames, you can use it to
> > dynamically generate forms etc...
> > Instead of repeatedly writing code to format output from the DB, you
> > just need a vlid link, and some form of instructions what your db
> > connection is to "get" and "output" and finally the output format -
> > preventing too much or too little from being drawn from the DB. You
> > only have to code this once, and after than it can be used everywhere
> > you need output. It might seem a little extreme to folks, I don't
> > know, but I find this approach saves time. The class which serves html
> > markup can end up being very complex but you can control things with a
> > couple of calls and an array.
>
> PMJI, but then you aren't much of a programmer.
>
> I've been doing SQL Database work for over 20 years now. I'll bet some
> of the databases I've designed would make yours look puny - over 100
> tables, over 1,500 columns, for instance. And mostly 3rd normal form.
>
> And yes, these databases do change as customer requirements change. But
> I deal with them.
>
> Your problem is that the user actually *cares* about the contents of the
> database. They don't. What they do care about is the *data* -
> including the relationships. Whether data is contained in one table or
> ten is not important.
>
> You can give all the excuses you want for not taking good advice. But
> the bottom line is - you haven't given any excuses we haven't heard
> hundreds of times. And you aren't explaining a situation most of us
> haven't run into multiple times. And we deal with it properly.
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================
I'm not sure what to make of that Jerry, but I wonder if my point was
clear enough. The idea is to write php classes which auto discover DB
structure, as does say phpmyadmin. The idea is to let the DB structure
be _independent_ of the php code, responding to changes within the DB
such as character encoding, field types, number of columns etc... so
that little or no hard coding and adjusting of the logic is needed,
just an adjustment - if any - to the "display" if one can call it that
- to config that prescribes the way the code interacts with the DB
tables.
I don't then mind how often changes are made to the DB structure,
which as you say always changes as the project grows and the
relationships become clearer, nor do I mind how often the tables are
split (pi$$ing contest avoided), provided a there exists a
data<~>query map.
ALways with programming it's bread and butter, reinventing the wheel
for each new app (even with OO)
forming the query, running it, getting the data, persisting it,
parsing, filtering, displaying and so on...
I wanted something a bit more like a fluent interface, more readable
and "semantic", in that it moves things on from having to write step
by step, and makes things a bit more fluid. I would be nice to get
eventually to a form where anyone could write in words what they
required; perhaps when chicken foot's reg exp parser comes up with
this ;)
I personally hate to see the type of hard coded stuff that gets banged
out, but it exists in the real world - of course.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|