I'm total newbie with Laravel, so the question might not be the most intelligent, be gentle, please.
I'd like to use an Open Source application made with Laravel. However, the application does not fully suit my needs, hence some customization is needed.
Naturally, I don't what to change the application files and also want to keep all my files separated.
In other PHP-based applications there are typically methods to customise the app without touching any other code. Also, it is possible to have own code nicely in one place. For instance, Wordpress has a theme concept, child theme concept, plugins and hooks in code (filters and actions). In Magento we have a simple method of overriding a core file by copying it to local code pool, as well as a more sophisticated dependency injection, which allows to override any class anywhere.
I've been trying to understand what is the correct way to customise a Laravel application in such a way, that my own modifications are separated from the base application and e.g. updating the base is possible.
Please guide me, or give pointers on how to do this.
Sounds like Packages might be your best option.
https://laravel.com/docs/master/packages
They let you customize very much in your application without touching other parts of the code, as well as keeping it separated from the other parts of the application.
Here's a getting started guide on packages:
https://medium.com/#lasselehtinen/getting-started-on-laravel-package-development-a62110c58ba1
Related
I have used backbone boilerplate on the past
https://github.com/backbone-boilerplate/backbone-boilerplate
I want to use marionette on my next project and I have found this
https://github.com/BoilerplateMVC/Marionette-Require-Boilerplate
My question is if it's a good idea to go with the marionette boilerplate or start form scratch.
As an aside, I'd like to suggest you give Yeoman a shot for scaffolding your first Marionette app. Yeoman works via what are called "generators", and provide much more than the the above Boilerplate MVC can offer you (Chai and Sinon for testing, Bower for client-side package management, etc...). Plus, Addy Osmani, who runs backbone-boilerplates is one of the heads of the project. Check out generator-marionette here.
I haven't used BoilerPlate, but glancing through it, it certainly seems like a valid approach to writing Marionette apps. If you're just getting started it will certainly help you see how the various pieces are supposed to be used. One gripe I've got is the folder structure. I prefer to break my applications down into modules, and then add models, collections, views, etc under each module. But this will certainly get you up and running quick, and there's nothing stopping you from customizing it to suit your needs.
I agree with others here: it is a useless limitation to imitate a folder structure that follows the 'old mvc model for server-side code'. You will remain more flexible further down the road if you think of your application strictly as completely self-containing modules, i.e. they contain their own controller/router/views/collections/templates etc. You can have a separate folder structure for shared code that is not a module, although anything can be made a module :)
Regarding boilerplate code and generators: i think in the beginning you should actually NOT do it, because you won't understand what you're doing. But that's just my personal opinion.
I have been deliberating and deliberating. Orchard is clearly powerful and flexible, contains some very sophisticated code. I need to create some specific Wizard/Workflow functionality. I am also using Entity framework instead of NHibernate. It seems to me that it will be better to write this application seperately using simpler code, which I can refactor, and integrate into Orchard via a Wrapper Module, rather than getting caught up in writing a module afresh for the complete Wizard/Workflow. As I say I am learning MVC3 and do not want to overcomplicate my life, just deliver a solution. I will certainly use Orchard for typical CMS website features.
I also still have an unresolved issue of representing Organisations above users, which I have already resolved outside Orchard. This is only needed for the application rather than content management. So in the short term it may be that I keep the authentication seperate.
Does this sound the most pragmatic approach. If there was a good existing module then the decision would be easier. I think they are considering workflow for 1.7, but we are not there yet.
Many thanks,
Ed
It does sound like a safe path, yes.
I have been learning to develop my own plugins and components for joomla! 2.5.
After a couple of months of developing features for my site, I am starting to realise that some of the components I have created could have probably been just as effective if I'd developed them as a plugin for com_content or com_user.
My question is what's the best way to decided if a full component is needed and when is it ok to use one or multiple plugins to give the same functionality.
My feeling at the moment is that plugins are a much nicer way to go due to them being self contained. Maybe I've answered my own question, and components are needed when interaction between elements is more complicated, where as plugins can be used for very modular functions.
Anyone else have a view?
Components and Plugins are completely different types of extensions.
Components are applications/systems that will appear in the content area such as VirtueMart and where the articles are shown. Consider them as software for you computer.
Plugins are there to manipulate Joomla and/or there extensions it's using. They contains functions that are associated with trigger events. So in a nutshell, they are there to extend the functionality of an existing extension.
So so answer your question, have a think about what you are creating and if will be an aplication or something to extend functionality.
Hope this helps
I was wondering if there is an off the shelf tool to help create a 'web application' directory structure with a basic application up and running? The source code would already be pre-written I'm guessing or based on the options some files may/may-not be generated.
I'm not sure what you'd call it but say we have a custom framework* which are to be used for web application development - rather than 'creating' a directory structure all the time we could just create it once and have a console like interface similar to the play framework to generate a basic application or an empty one as per the developer's choice.
We could just give various types of 'zip' files and ask folks to unzip it and import it in their IDE of choice and continue. However, we'd prefer to have an 'installable' to run from the command line (or GUI but no such preference) to have a basic application up and running without everyone wanting to do it all over again.
How does the Play framework do it? What do they use? (I'm guess similar things exist for RoR, Groovy/Grails.)
*It's not custom per se, but similar to having all the spring/hibernate/restlet/freemarker etc files pre-configured, up and running and a directory structure with packages for the various components by convention
I think one of the key points here regarding the Play framework is that it uses the concept of convention over configuration. Your applications are forced to follow the same pattern for the different parts of your application, or it will not work. I personally like this because it makes working on different projects easier, as the rules are always the same, rather the somewhat unwritten rules of best practice.
Java EE on the other hand takes the concept of configuration over convention. Therefore all your files and structures are defined in your relevant XML documents that specify your frameworks, classpaths, etc. There do exist some tools to try to bridge the gap. For example
IDE's will have project creation tools for your chosen framework, so will create a Struts or Spring MVC project structure with a few simple wizard steps. Eclipse does this for sure as one example.
Spring MVC also has Roo. This is a boilerplate code generation tool that creates large parts of your initial project for you.
From your description it seems you have a few different frameworks that you want to have auto-generated, but I don't think any tool currently will serve your purpose. Your concept of a zip file is your best bet here.
If you want a kind of scaffolding in the Java EE world, take a look at Appfuse which provides some archetype with several implementations on the views layer (JSF, Spring MVC, Struts 2...).
I am new to open source Content Management System tools. I got a website using Joomla for content management. Now, I am just thinking to Umbraco or Dotnetnuke (any Asp.net based) frameworks to use. Will it be a complex to do this migration. Can you suggest pros and cons for this idea.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks !
For Umbraco ...
Most of your client-side code like HTML, CSS and JavaScript can just be copied straight over, but as expected it may require some fiddling.
As for the data, it might be worth looking into the CMSImport module for Umbraco. As long as you can convert the source data into one of the formats recognised by the module, you should be able to upload your content with ease. I've had no personal experience with this module, but should be worth a shot.
It really depends on the size of the site and the functionality requirements. For smaller sites, it may be as easy as implementing the skin based on the original design (or, if a custom design isn't needed, selecting a free or 3rd party skin) and then manually migrating the content. For really large sites, you should be able to write scripts to migrate the content. I'm not aware of any products that do this. You'll also probably need to select some modules to use for things like forms.