3 ms·

The other consideration needs to be "How did this mature framework evolve?". Symfony dumped all symfony1 users up s* creek when Symfony2 came out; Zend framewo

by porker 12y ago

The other consideration needs to be "How did this mature framework evolve?". Symfony dumped all symfony1 users up s* creek when Symfony2 came out; Zend framework 2 is an entirely different beast to ZF1... Are these mature frameworks any more stable than the new ones, or are they new frameworks, phoenix-like in assuming the name of the old one?

timdev2 12y ago
As far as those two frameworks, it's mostly about retaining brand recognition. On the other hand, major version releases are when you make such dramatic departures from what's come before. At least in ZF, they got a lot a lot of things more-right. I moved a (pretty complex, line-of-business transactional-type) project from ZF1 -> ZF2, and I'm happy I did. Some things changed a lot (dispatch, routing, forms), while other things were very easy to translate (caching, logging, etc). In that case, most of the business logic was built around Doctrine2, encapsulated nicely into service classes, and therefore fairly framework-agnostic.
- porker 12y ago
  With the OP looking for a framework where he doesn't have to rewrite the code every few years (or more frequently, hello Drupal), major version upgrades matter. I'm glad that transitioning your project from ZF1 to ZF2 was worth the effort and relatively easy. I have a number of clients still on symfony 1.4 because although unsupported and a 'dead' system, without a straightforward migration path to Symfony2 it doesn't make economic sense for them to do so - not when the whole web system (CMS, order management, the rest) is written using symfony 1.4 and Doctrine 1.2. Until it stops working, as it's going to be a new build either way. I think that kind of framework dead-ending is fairly irresponsible; certainly some of my clients thought I was irresponsible to have chosen Symfony when their 1-2 year old systems needed to be rewritten...

by porker 12y ago

timdev2 12y ago

As far as those two frameworks, it's mostly about retaining brand recognition. On the other hand, major version releases are when you make such dramatic departures from what's come before. At least in ZF, they got a lot a lot of things more-right. I moved a (pretty complex, line-of-business transactional-type) project from ZF1 -> ZF2, and I'm happy I did. Some things changed a lot (dispatch, routing, forms), while other things were very easy to translate (caching, logging, etc). In that case, most of the business logic was built around Doctrine2, encapsulated nicely into service classes, and therefore fairly framework-agnostic.

porker 12y ago
With the OP looking for a framework where he doesn't have to rewrite the code every few years (or more frequently, hello Drupal), major version upgrades matter. I'm glad that transitioning your project from ZF1 to ZF2 was worth the effort and relatively easy. I have a number of clients still on symfony 1.4 because although unsupported and a 'dead' system, without a straightforward migration path to Symfony2 it doesn't make economic sense for them to do so - not when the whole web system (CMS, order management, the rest) is written using symfony 1.4 and Doctrine 1.2. Until it stops working, as it's going to be a new build either way. I think that kind of framework dead-ending is fairly irresponsible; certainly some of my clients thought I was irresponsible to have chosen Symfony when their 1-2 year old systems needed to be rewritten...