4 ms·

Its legacy (who wants to still support PHP4?). AFAIK, it's no longer maintained; I believe all the core development is now taking place on the Lithium project:

Its legacy (who wants to still support PHP4?). AFAIK, it's no longer maintained; I believe all the core development is now taking place on the Lithium project: http://lithify.me/ http://lithify.me/

Kiro 14y ago
Isn't Lithium just a fork? CakePHP 2.2 was released just a few days ago and they dropped PHP4 support in 2.* I think.
- Kudos 14y ago
  It's not a fork, it's a separate project by 2 former Cake developers.
giulianob 14y ago
CakePHP 2.x did a major rewrite of nasty parts and dropped support for PHP 4. It's actually very well done and much more consistent now.
unavoidable 14y ago
None of these things are true, I don't know where anyone comes up with this stuff. Sounds like a smear job more than anything. CakePHP2 is PHP 5.2.8+[1]. It's still being maintained and 2.2 was released this week[2]. Lithium is not a real 'fork' from Cake - rather it is a project that two of the Cake devs were working on as a 'next gen CakePHP' but decided to make into a separate project - the two frameworks don't share any code in their 'production' releases. Lithium has a much smaller community and is still poorly documented (as far as I can tell having tried to use it for a project). [1] http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/appendices/2-0-migration-guide.html#php-version-support http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/appendices/2-0-migration-guid... [2] http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/lorenzo/2012/07/01/cakephp_2_2_and_2_1_4_released http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/lorenzo/2012/07/01/cakeph...
- mikegirouard 14y ago
  > Sounds like a smear job more than anything. Not at all. I'm sorry you misunderstood. Cake has been quite good to me over the years. Ever since I switched to Lithium I haven't looked back.
sequoia 14y ago
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. I can see you posted this without doing so much as a single google search pointing your browser to "cakephp.org". I am interested in hearing skrebbel's response to this question however (what makes cake so horrible).
- mikegirouard 14y ago
  Goodness. Sorry. Perhaps I just misunderstood. To me it seems sold as the successor to Cake. http://www.meetup.com/lithium/ http://www.meetup.com/lithium/
  - sequoia 14y ago
    The Lithium folks (nate & gwoo in particular) split off from the Cake core team. There was some contention but generally speaking I think everyone is still friends. As for lithium being the successor to cake 1.3... well certainly nate & gwoo feel that way, that's why they built it. :) And certainly phpnut & mark_story don't feel that way, that's why they are still driving forward with cake 2.0. Anyway they are both cool projects but I was reacting strongly to your assertion that cake is "no longer maintained", which is as accurate as saying RoR is no longer maintained and has been officially superseded by Node+Express.
brendoncrawford 14y ago
> AFAIK, it's no longer maintained False. Last commit was 18 hours ago.

Its legacy (who wants to still support PHP4?). AFAIK, it's no longer maintained; I believe all the core development is now taking place on the Lithium project: http://lithify.me/ http://lithify.me/

Kiro 14y ago

Isn't Lithium just a fork? CakePHP 2.2 was released just a few days ago and they dropped PHP4 support in 2.* I think.

Kudos 14y ago
It's not a fork, it's a separate project by 2 former Cake developers.

giulianob 14y ago

CakePHP 2.x did a major rewrite of nasty parts and dropped support for PHP 4. It's actually very well done and much more consistent now.

unavoidable 14y ago

None of these things are true, I don't know where anyone comes up with this stuff. Sounds like a smear job more than anything. CakePHP2 is PHP 5.2.8+[1]. It's still being maintained and 2.2 was released this week[2]. Lithium is not a real 'fork' from Cake - rather it is a project that two of the Cake devs were working on as a 'next gen CakePHP' but decided to make into a separate project - the two frameworks don't share any code in their 'production' releases. Lithium has a much smaller community and is still poorly documented (as far as I can tell having tried to use it for a project). [1] http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/appendices/2-0-migration-guide.html#php-version-support http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/appendices/2-0-migration-guid... [2] http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/lorenzo/2012/07/01/cakephp_2_2_and_2_1_4_released http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/lorenzo/2012/07/01/cakeph...

mikegirouard 14y ago
> Sounds like a smear job more than anything. Not at all. I'm sorry you misunderstood. Cake has been quite good to me over the years. Ever since I switched to Lithium I haven't looked back.

sequoia 14y ago

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. I can see you posted this without doing so much as a single google search pointing your browser to "cakephp.org". I am interested in hearing skrebbel's response to this question however (what makes cake so horrible).

mikegirouard 14y ago
Goodness. Sorry. Perhaps I just misunderstood. To me it seems sold as the successor to Cake. http://www.meetup.com/lithium/ http://www.meetup.com/lithium/
- sequoia 14y ago
  The Lithium folks (nate & gwoo in particular) split off from the Cake core team. There was some contention but generally speaking I think everyone is still friends. As for lithium being the successor to cake 1.3... well certainly nate & gwoo feel that way, that's why they built it. :) And certainly phpnut & mark_story don't feel that way, that's why they are still driving forward with cake 2.0. Anyway they are both cool projects but I was reacting strongly to your assertion that cake is "no longer maintained", which is as accurate as saying RoR is no longer maintained and has been officially superseded by Node+Express.

brendoncrawford 14y ago

> AFAIK, it's no longer maintained False. Last commit was 18 hours ago.