From leo at finalresort.org Fri Feb 1 00:56:38 2008 From: leo at finalresort.org (Leo R. Lundgren) Date: Fri Feb 1 00:57:17 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> Message-ID: Chris, Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. // Leo 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: > Greetings List! > > This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The > FileMaker API for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and > since I have a little test box in my basement with both FX.php and > F.A.P. installed on it, and F.A.P is no longer beta, I thought I'd > throw equivalent tests at it, and see what popped out. The results > REALLY surprised me: > > * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 > * FX.php: 1.72123408318 > * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 > * FX.php: 1.68022203445 > * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 > * FX.php: 2.96020698547 > * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 > * FX.php: 1.64016890526 > * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 > * FX.php: 1.72534799576 > > Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 > Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 > > In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by > simulating load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. > Also, although the server in question is running the latest version > of FileMaker Server Advanced 9, it only has a developer license > installed, so I had to keep repetitions very low, but I would > expect results to scale similarly as server load and available > connections were increased. Also, the test box is a Mac Mini, so > you could handle a lot more lot with faster hardware. I've > attached my test code. > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more >> integrated to the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both >> of them communicated with the server using XML and parses it on >> their side. The PHP stuff you see on the server and in its >> permissions are most likely just administrative stuff FM put in >> there to integrate the PHP part with the server as a whole a bit >> more. >> >> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object >> oriented whereas FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean >> and similar to the rest of my code. I have no doubt that FX.php >> works just as well though. >> >> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons >> between the two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB >> backend will never be fast, but perhaps there's some difference in >> speed between the two anyway? Perhaps they parse XML differently >> or something. >> >> // Leo >> >> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: >> >>> Greetings all? >>> >>> >>> >>> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I?m looking for; >>> >>> a. gut feelings >>> >>> b. opinions >>> >>> c. evidence >>> >>> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native FMP >>> PHP interface or using FX.php?? >>> >>> >>> >>> I was under the impression that ?native? FMP PHP is simply an >>> alternative to FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? >>> that said I?ve also noticed that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP >>> interface listed, which makes me wonder if in fact it has hooks >>> directly into the server?.?? >>> >>> >>> >>> As I said, any information greatly received? >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Steve >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080201/d0dbe207/attachment-0001.html From jschwartz at exit445.com Fri Feb 1 01:44:11 2008 From: jschwartz at exit445.com (Jonathan Schwartz) Date: Fri Feb 1 01:44:58 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Finding non-empty fields? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:00 PM +1100 2/1/08, Kevin Futter wrote: > >Yep, thanks Jonathan. Apology already sent in another message (grovel, >grovel...). > >However, I like Troy's suggestion of "@*", as using ">0" to search for text >just seems weird to me :-) Yep. You're right. On further thought, I would use a FMP field dedicated for the purpose IsEmpty() and then search for the "1", YMMV J -- Jonathan Schwartz Exit 445 Group jonathan@exit445.com http://www.exit445.com 415-381-1852 From ggt667 at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 02:50:23 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Fri Feb 1 02:50:32 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] [Off, I think] Address field names and tricks In-Reply-To: <7907968.151201823920774.JavaMail.tcmeyers@troymeyers.com> References: <7907968.151201823920774.JavaMail.tcmeyers@troymeyers.com> Message-ID: This should be the the standard, as of off the top of my head name address zip town areaCounty country phonenumber direct cellularphone fax epost webaddress The only thing in the addresspart that really changes from country to country is the location of zip vs town, either it's <> <> or <>, <> That said, sometimes there are several lines of address, but that only calls for parsing, so I find it simpler to work with and less headaches to use textarea as form object type. ggt 2008/2/1, Troy Meyers : > I'm redesigning our customer shipping/billing address page from CDML to PHP, and I want to take advantage of some of the things I see on other sites. > > There seems to be a "standard" set of fields for street address, city, state, zip, country, etc. for USA addresses, and maybe even a form of that that also works for international addresses... though I wouldn't mind having two flavors of the form page based on country. > > What are the normal fields? Is there something about their names, IDs, or something in JavaScript that allows many web browsers to help users "autofill" these fields? > > -Troy > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From ggt667 at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 02:58:29 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Fri Feb 1 02:58:37 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> Message-ID: What do you mean by OO? 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : > Chris, > > Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. > > // Leo > > > 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: > > Greetings List! > > This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The FileMaker API > for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and since I have a little test > box in my basement with both FX.php and F.A.P. installed on it, and F.A.P is > no longer beta, I thought I'd throw equivalent tests at it, and see what > popped out. The results REALLY surprised me: > > * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 > * FX.php: 1.72123408318 > * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 > * FX.php: 1.68022203445 > * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 > * FX.php: 2.96020698547 > * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 > * FX.php: 1.64016890526 > * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 > * FX.php: 1.72534799576 > > Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 > Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 > > In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by simulating > load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. Also, although the > server in question is running the latest version of FileMaker Server > Advanced 9, it only has a developer license installed, so I had to keep > repetitions very low, but I would expect results to scale similarly as > server load and available connections were increased. Also, the test box is > a Mac Mini, so you could handle a lot more lot with faster hardware. I've > attached my test code. > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > > > Hi, > > I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more integrated to > the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both of them communicated > with the server using XML and parses it on their side. The PHP stuff you see > on the server and in its permissions are most likely just administrative > stuff FM put in there to integrate the PHP part with the server as a whole a > bit more. > > I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object oriented whereas > FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean and similar to the rest of > my code. I have no doubt that FX.php works just as well though. > > BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons between the > two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB backend will never be > fast, but perhaps there's some difference in speed between the two anyway? > Perhaps they parse XML differently or something. > > // Leo > > 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: > > > Greetings all? > > > > In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I'm looking for; > > a. gut feelings > > b. opinions > > c. evidence > > and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native FMP PHP > interface or using FX.php?? > > > > I was under the impression that 'native' FMP PHP is simply an alternative to > FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? that said I've also noticed > that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP interface listed, which makes me > wonder if in fact it has hooks directly into the server?.?? > > > > As I said, any information greatly received? > > > > Cheers > > Steve > > > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > -| > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > From ggt667 at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 02:58:49 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Fri Feb 1 02:59:03 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> Message-ID: You want the objects? 2008/2/1, Gjermund Gusland Thorsen : > What do you mean by OO? > > 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : > > Chris, > > > > Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. > > > > // Leo > > > > > > 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: > > > > Greetings List! > > > > This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The FileMaker API > > for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and since I have a little test > > box in my basement with both FX.php and F.A.P. installed on it, and F.A.P is > > no longer beta, I thought I'd throw equivalent tests at it, and see what > > popped out. The results REALLY surprised me: > > > > * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 > > * FX.php: 1.72123408318 > > * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 > > * FX.php: 1.68022203445 > > * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 > > * FX.php: 2.96020698547 > > * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 > > * FX.php: 1.64016890526 > > * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 > > * FX.php: 1.72534799576 > > > > Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 > > Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 > > > > In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by simulating > > load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. Also, although the > > server in question is running the latest version of FileMaker Server > > Advanced 9, it only has a developer license installed, so I had to keep > > repetitions very low, but I would expect results to scale similarly as > > server load and available connections were increased. Also, the test box is > > a Mac Mini, so you could handle a lot more lot with faster hardware. I've > > attached my test code. > > > > --Chris Hansen > > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > > Creator of FX.php > > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > > www.iViking.org > > > > On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more integrated to > > the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both of them communicated > > with the server using XML and parses it on their side. The PHP stuff you see > > on the server and in its permissions are most likely just administrative > > stuff FM put in there to integrate the PHP part with the server as a whole a > > bit more. > > > > I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object oriented whereas > > FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean and similar to the rest of > > my code. I have no doubt that FX.php works just as well though. > > > > BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons between the > > two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB backend will never be > > fast, but perhaps there's some difference in speed between the two anyway? > > Perhaps they parse XML differently or something. > > > > // Leo > > > > 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: > > > > > > Greetings all? > > > > > > > > In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I'm looking for; > > > > a. gut feelings > > > > b. opinions > > > > c. evidence > > > > and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native FMP PHP > > interface or using FX.php?? > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that 'native' FMP PHP is simply an alternative to > > FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? that said I've also noticed > > that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP interface listed, which makes me > > wonder if in fact it has hooks directly into the server?.?? > > > > > > > > As I said, any information greatly received? > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FX.php_List mailing list > > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > > > > -| > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FX.php_List mailing list > > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > > > From leo at finalresort.org Fri Feb 1 03:11:16 2008 From: leo at finalresort.org (Leo R. Lundgren) Date: Fri Feb 1 03:11:33 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> Message-ID: <25919463-45B4-4938-8114-EB2D4B87EFFE@finalresort.org> I mean Object Oriented. 1 feb 2008 kl. 10.58 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: > What do you mean by OO? > > 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : >> Chris, >> >> Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. >> >> // Leo >> >> >> 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: >> >> Greetings List! >> >> This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The >> FileMaker API >> for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and since I have a >> little test >> box in my basement with both FX.php and F.A.P. installed on it, >> and F.A.P is >> no longer beta, I thought I'd throw equivalent tests at it, and >> see what >> popped out. The results REALLY surprised me: >> >> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 >> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 >> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 >> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 >> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 >> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 >> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 >> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 >> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 >> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 >> >> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 >> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 >> >> In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by >> simulating >> load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. Also, >> although the >> server in question is running the latest version of FileMaker Server >> Advanced 9, it only has a developer license installed, so I had to >> keep >> repetitions very low, but I would expect results to scale >> similarly as >> server load and available connections were increased. Also, the >> test box is >> a Mac Mini, so you could handle a lot more lot with faster >> hardware. I've >> attached my test code. >> >> --Chris Hansen >> FileMaker 8 Certified Developer >> FileMaker 7 Certified Developer >> Creator of FX.php >> "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." >> www.iViking.org >> >> On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more >> integrated to >> the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both of them >> communicated >> with the server using XML and parses it on their side. The PHP >> stuff you see >> on the server and in its permissions are most likely just >> administrative >> stuff FM put in there to integrate the PHP part with the server as >> a whole a >> bit more. >> >> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object >> oriented whereas >> FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean and similar to >> the rest of >> my code. I have no doubt that FX.php works just as well though. >> >> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons >> between the >> two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB backend will >> never be >> fast, but perhaps there's some difference in speed between the two >> anyway? >> Perhaps they parse XML differently or something. >> >> // Leo >> >> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: >> >> >> Greetings all? >> >> >> >> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I'm looking for; >> >> a. gut feelings >> >> b. opinions >> >> c. evidence >> >> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native FMP PHP >> interface or using FX.php?? >> >> >> >> I was under the impression that 'native' FMP PHP is simply an >> alternative to >> FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? that said I've >> also noticed >> that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP interface listed, which >> makes me >> wonder if in fact it has hooks directly into the server?.?? >> >> >> >> As I said, any information greatly received? >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FX.php_List mailing list >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >> >> >> -| >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FX.php_List mailing list >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >> >> > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -| From ggt667 at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 03:17:24 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Fri Feb 1 03:17:37 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: <25919463-45B4-4938-8114-EB2D4B87EFFE@finalresort.org> References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> <25919463-45B4-4938-8114-EB2D4B87EFFE@finalresort.org> Message-ID: But in what way? php is slightly limited when it comes to oo, pyFileMaker however is oo. 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : > I mean Object Oriented. > > 1 feb 2008 kl. 10.58 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: > > > What do you mean by OO? > > > > 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : > >> Chris, > >> > >> Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. > >> > >> // Leo > >> > >> > >> 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: > >> > >> Greetings List! > >> > >> This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The > >> FileMaker API > >> for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and since I have a > >> little test > >> box in my basement with both FX.php and F.A.P. installed on it, > >> and F.A.P is > >> no longer beta, I thought I'd throw equivalent tests at it, and > >> see what > >> popped out. The results REALLY surprised me: > >> > >> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 > >> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 > >> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 > >> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 > >> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 > >> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 > >> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 > >> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 > >> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 > >> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 > >> > >> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 > >> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 > >> > >> In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by > >> simulating > >> load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. Also, > >> although the > >> server in question is running the latest version of FileMaker Server > >> Advanced 9, it only has a developer license installed, so I had to > >> keep > >> repetitions very low, but I would expect results to scale > >> similarly as > >> server load and available connections were increased. Also, the > >> test box is > >> a Mac Mini, so you could handle a lot more lot with faster > >> hardware. I've > >> attached my test code. > >> > >> --Chris Hansen > >> FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > >> FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > >> Creator of FX.php > >> "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > >> www.iViking.org > >> > >> On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more > >> integrated to > >> the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both of them > >> communicated > >> with the server using XML and parses it on their side. The PHP > >> stuff you see > >> on the server and in its permissions are most likely just > >> administrative > >> stuff FM put in there to integrate the PHP part with the server as > >> a whole a > >> bit more. > >> > >> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object > >> oriented whereas > >> FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean and similar to > >> the rest of > >> my code. I have no doubt that FX.php works just as well though. > >> > >> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons > >> between the > >> two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB backend will > >> never be > >> fast, but perhaps there's some difference in speed between the two > >> anyway? > >> Perhaps they parse XML differently or something. > >> > >> // Leo > >> > >> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: > >> > >> > >> Greetings all? > >> > >> > >> > >> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I'm looking for; > >> > >> a. gut feelings > >> > >> b. opinions > >> > >> c. evidence > >> > >> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native FMP PHP > >> interface or using FX.php?? > >> > >> > >> > >> I was under the impression that 'native' FMP PHP is simply an > >> alternative to > >> FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? that said I've > >> also noticed > >> that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP interface listed, which > >> makes me > >> wonder if in fact it has hooks directly into the server?.?? > >> > >> > >> > >> As I said, any information greatly received? > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> FX.php_List mailing list > >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > >> > >> > >> -| > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> FX.php_List mailing list > >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > FX.php_List mailing list > > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > -| > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From leo at finalresort.org Fri Feb 1 03:20:29 2008 From: leo at finalresort.org (Leo R. Lundgren) Date: Fri Feb 1 03:20:44 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> <25919463-45B4-4938-8114-EB2D4B87EFFE@finalresort.org> Message-ID: Indeed, PHP OO isn't complete or anything like it. But in my opinion it's far much nicer than the old array- or fully procedural style. I'd say that PHP OO is adequate to work with FMPHPAPI at least :) 1 feb 2008 kl. 11.17 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: > But in what way? php is slightly limited when it comes to oo, > pyFileMaker however is oo. > > 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : >> I mean Object Oriented. >> >> 1 feb 2008 kl. 10.58 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: >> >>> What do you mean by OO? >>> >>> 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. >>>> >>>> // Leo >>>> >>>> >>>> 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: >>>> >>>> Greetings List! >>>> >>>> This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The >>>> FileMaker API >>>> for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and since I have a >>>> little test >>>> box in my basement with both FX.php and F.A.P. installed on it, >>>> and F.A.P is >>>> no longer beta, I thought I'd throw equivalent tests at it, and >>>> see what >>>> popped out. The results REALLY surprised me: >>>> >>>> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 >>>> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 >>>> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 >>>> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 >>>> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 >>>> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 >>>> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 >>>> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 >>>> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 >>>> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 >>>> >>>> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 >>>> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 >>>> >>>> In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by >>>> simulating >>>> load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. Also, >>>> although the >>>> server in question is running the latest version of FileMaker >>>> Server >>>> Advanced 9, it only has a developer license installed, so I had to >>>> keep >>>> repetitions very low, but I would expect results to scale >>>> similarly as >>>> server load and available connections were increased. Also, the >>>> test box is >>>> a Mac Mini, so you could handle a lot more lot with faster >>>> hardware. I've >>>> attached my test code. >>>> >>>> --Chris Hansen >>>> FileMaker 8 Certified Developer >>>> FileMaker 7 Certified Developer >>>> Creator of FX.php >>>> "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." >>>> www.iViking.org >>>> >>>> On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more >>>> integrated to >>>> the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both of them >>>> communicated >>>> with the server using XML and parses it on their side. The PHP >>>> stuff you see >>>> on the server and in its permissions are most likely just >>>> administrative >>>> stuff FM put in there to integrate the PHP part with the server as >>>> a whole a >>>> bit more. >>>> >>>> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object >>>> oriented whereas >>>> FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean and similar to >>>> the rest of >>>> my code. I have no doubt that FX.php works just as well though. >>>> >>>> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons >>>> between the >>>> two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB backend will >>>> never be >>>> fast, but perhaps there's some difference in speed between the two >>>> anyway? >>>> Perhaps they parse XML differently or something. >>>> >>>> // Leo >>>> >>>> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: >>>> >>>> >>>> Greetings all? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I'm looking for; >>>> >>>> a. gut feelings >>>> >>>> b. opinions >>>> >>>> c. evidence >>>> >>>> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native >>>> FMP PHP >>>> interface or using FX.php?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I was under the impression that 'native' FMP PHP is simply an >>>> alternative to >>>> FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? that said I've >>>> also noticed >>>> that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP interface listed, which >>>> makes me >>>> wonder if in fact it has hooks directly into the server?.?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I said, any information greatly received? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> FX.php_List mailing list >>>> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >>>> >>>> >>>> -| >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> FX.php_List mailing list >>>> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FX.php_List mailing list >>> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >> >> >> -| >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FX.php_List mailing list >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >> > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -| From ggt667 at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 03:38:10 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Fri Feb 1 03:38:19 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> <25919463-45B4-4938-8114-EB2D4B87EFFE@finalresort.org> Message-ID: I believe that the oo implementation part of the FMPHPAPI is the reason for it to be slower, arrays is php's simplest interpretable unit AFAIK. 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : > Indeed, PHP OO isn't complete or anything like it. But in my opinion > it's far much nicer than the old array- or fully procedural style. > I'd say that PHP OO is adequate to work with FMPHPAPI at least :) > > 1 feb 2008 kl. 11.17 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: > > > But in what way? php is slightly limited when it comes to oo, > > pyFileMaker however is oo. > > > > 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : > >> I mean Object Oriented. > >> > >> 1 feb 2008 kl. 10.58 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: > >> > >>> What do you mean by OO? > >>> > >>> 2008/2/1, Leo R. Lundgren : > >>>> Chris, > >>>> > >>>> Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. > >>>> > >>>> // Leo > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: > >>>> > >>>> Greetings List! > >>>> > >>>> This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The > >>>> FileMaker API > >>>> for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and since I have a > >>>> little test > >>>> box in my basement with both FX.php and F.A.P. installed on it, > >>>> and F.A.P is > >>>> no longer beta, I thought I'd throw equivalent tests at it, and > >>>> see what > >>>> popped out. The results REALLY surprised me: > >>>> > >>>> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 > >>>> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 > >>>> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 > >>>> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 > >>>> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 > >>>> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 > >>>> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 > >>>> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 > >>>> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 > >>>> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 > >>>> > >>>> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 > >>>> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 > >>>> > >>>> In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by > >>>> simulating > >>>> load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. Also, > >>>> although the > >>>> server in question is running the latest version of FileMaker > >>>> Server > >>>> Advanced 9, it only has a developer license installed, so I had to > >>>> keep > >>>> repetitions very low, but I would expect results to scale > >>>> similarly as > >>>> server load and available connections were increased. Also, the > >>>> test box is > >>>> a Mac Mini, so you could handle a lot more lot with faster > >>>> hardware. I've > >>>> attached my test code. > >>>> > >>>> --Chris Hansen > >>>> FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > >>>> FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > >>>> Creator of FX.php > >>>> "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > >>>> www.iViking.org > >>>> > >>>> On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more > >>>> integrated to > >>>> the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both of them > >>>> communicated > >>>> with the server using XML and parses it on their side. The PHP > >>>> stuff you see > >>>> on the server and in its permissions are most likely just > >>>> administrative > >>>> stuff FM put in there to integrate the PHP part with the server as > >>>> a whole a > >>>> bit more. > >>>> > >>>> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object > >>>> oriented whereas > >>>> FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean and similar to > >>>> the rest of > >>>> my code. I have no doubt that FX.php works just as well though. > >>>> > >>>> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons > >>>> between the > >>>> two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB backend will > >>>> never be > >>>> fast, but perhaps there's some difference in speed between the two > >>>> anyway? > >>>> Perhaps they parse XML differently or something. > >>>> > >>>> // Leo > >>>> > >>>> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Greetings all? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I'm looking for; > >>>> > >>>> a. gut feelings > >>>> > >>>> b. opinions > >>>> > >>>> c. evidence > >>>> > >>>> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native > >>>> FMP PHP > >>>> interface or using FX.php?? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I was under the impression that 'native' FMP PHP is simply an > >>>> alternative to > >>>> FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? that said I've > >>>> also noticed > >>>> that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP interface listed, which > >>>> makes me > >>>> wonder if in fact it has hooks directly into the server?.?? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> As I said, any information greatly received? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> FX.php_List mailing list > >>>> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -| > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> FX.php_List mailing list > >>>> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> FX.php_List mailing list > >>> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > >> > >> > >> -| > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> FX.php_List mailing list > >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > FX.php_List mailing list > > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > -| > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From tcmeyers at troymeyers.com Fri Feb 1 08:48:22 2008 From: tcmeyers at troymeyers.com (Troy Meyers) Date: Fri Feb 1 08:48:34 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] [Off, I think] Address field names and tricks Message-ID: <3715321.191361201880902438.JavaMail.tcmeyers@troymeyers.com> ggt, Thank you. I set up a simple test form to try these out for autofill: http://lab.troymeyers.com/flasking/autofilltest.php Please try the page and attempt "autofill". In Safari when I click the autofill button, some of these do indeed fill in with my usual values, but not all of the ones I'd expect to. Does autofill work by looking at the name attribute of input fields? Is there an online reference for what browsers look for when attempting autofill? -Troy > This should be the the standard, as of off the top of my head > > name > > address > > zip > > town > > areaCounty > > country > > phonenumber > > direct > > cellularphone > > fax > > epost > > webaddress > > The only thing in the addresspart that really changes from country to > country is the location of zip vs town, either it's <> <> or > <>, <> > > That said, sometimes there are several lines of address, but that only > calls for parsing, so I find it simpler to work with and less headaches > to use textarea as form object type. > > ggt From chris at iViking.org Fri Feb 1 09:39:26 2008 From: chris at iViking.org (Chris Hansen) Date: Fri Feb 1 09:39:45 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> Message-ID: <71D311BB-C714-4C78-83B7-1D8FD6D5E0F0@iViking.org> Leo (& List - especially the second paragraph on), To what extent do you want FX.php to be object oriented? Right now FX uses two objects: a monolithic connection object (which can even be used to return query metadata), and an error object. The only thing you _have_ to get as an array is the returned records, and in recent releases, that array usually need only be two levels deep. I was thinking yesterday about the sense of splitting the individual connection types into separate objects, but I believe that FileMaker has gone way over the top in how object oriented their API is. Why? Persistence and verbosity. Of course there are many places where it makes sense to go heavy on the OO side (and Java, for one, is all about OO), but when I work with the FileMaker API for PHP, the objects I'm creating feel to me like they're not designed for a non-persistent environment like the Web. I feel like FAP is designed the way that I would build a desktop application. All that said, I'm willing to be convinced. I was a fervent lasso supporter until 2001 when Chris Adams (who worked with me on FX.php 1.0) showed me that what I'd been told about PHP being much more difficult than Lasso was bunk. I'm willing to be convinced, but I need to know what bits you think need to be more object-oriented, and why. And be specific =) Also, keep in mind that objects can add overhead, and I believe that's a big part of the reason why FAP is so much slower than FX.php. Finally, remember that FX is open-source: Gjermund nagged me mercilessly, and sent a plethora of code bits and examples of how it was done elsewhere until I got UTF-8 support working; when Steve Lane wanted OO error handling, he sent me a suitably updated version of FX.php which required relatively few tweaks to turn it into a releasable version; Masayuki Nii created a version of FX which added character encoding support; and on and on (see CHANGES.txt for the full list of who has done what...) So, here's what you can do if you want something in FX.php, in no particular order: 1) Tell me you want it, and why it should be part of FX.php; 2) Send me and example of something that has what you want (ideally, actual code, even if it requires significant modification); 3) Add the code to FX.php, and send me the updated version; 4) Create a tool that can be used with FX.php, and submit it as an addition to a future release. As a final thought, in a release of FX.php in the near future, I will be moving to the PHP5 object model (and making some internals of the code protected, etc.) At that point I'll add some getter and setter methods, and the last version supporting PHP4 will be frozen but available for those who need it. At first, I'll only lock people out of the methods and attributes that they shouldn't be touching anyway (I've seen some ..er.. interesting code at times =), and the new methods will be mostly added features, but a couple years down the line, new versions of FX.php will require that attributes be set via function. (Leo, if that's all you're after, then yes, we're heading that way.) Best, --Chris On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > Chris, > > Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. > > // Leo > > 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: > >> Greetings List! >> >> This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The >> FileMaker API for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and >> since I have a little test box in my basement with both FX.php and >> F.A.P. installed on it, and F.A.P is no longer beta, I thought I'd >> throw equivalent tests at it, and see what popped out. The results >> REALLY surprised me: >> >> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 >> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 >> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 >> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 >> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 >> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 >> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 >> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 >> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 >> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 >> >> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 >> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 >> >> In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by >> simulating load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. >> Also, although the server in question is running the latest version >> of FileMaker Server Advanced 9, it only has a developer license >> installed, so I had to keep repetitions very low, but I would >> expect results to scale similarly as server load and available >> connections were increased. Also, the test box is a Mac Mini, so >> you could handle a lot more lot with faster hardware. I've >> attached my test code. >> >> --Chris Hansen >> FileMaker 8 Certified Developer >> FileMaker 7 Certified Developer >> Creator of FX.php >> "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." >> www.iViking.org >> >> On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more >>> integrated to the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both >>> of them communicated with the server using XML and parses it on >>> their side. The PHP stuff you see on the server and in its >>> permissions are most likely just administrative stuff FM put in >>> there to integrate the PHP part with the server as a whole a bit >>> more. >>> >>> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object >>> oriented whereas FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean >>> and similar to the rest of my code. I have no doubt that FX.php >>> works just as well though. >>> >>> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons >>> between the two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB >>> backend will never be fast, but perhaps there's some difference in >>> speed between the two anyway? Perhaps they parse XML differently >>> or something. >>> >>> // Leo >>> >>> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: >>> >>>> Greetings all? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I?m looking for; >>>> >>>> a. gut feelings >>>> >>>> b. opinions >>>> >>>> c. evidence >>>> >>>> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native FMP >>>> PHP interface or using FX.php?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I was under the impression that ?native? FMP PHP is simply an >>>> alternative to FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? >>>> that said I?ve also noticed that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP >>>> interface listed, which makes me wonder if in fact it has hooks >>>> directly into the server?.?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I said, any information greatly received? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FX.php_List mailing list >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > -| > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list From chris at iViking.org Fri Feb 1 09:42:42 2008 From: chris at iViking.org (Chris Hansen) Date: Fri Feb 1 09:42:58 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? Message-ID: Hello List! In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still using PHP4. So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? --Chris Hansen FileMaker 8 Certified Developer FileMaker 7 Certified Developer Creator of FX.php "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." www.iViking.org From bob at patin.com Fri Feb 1 09:46:27 2008 From: bob at patin.com (Bob Patin) Date: Fri Feb 1 09:46:35 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F957104-3917-487A-A3E2-99A88B0F6C26@patin.com> Hi, All of my web servers are still using PHP 4; I host so many PHP sites that were written with 4, and am not eager to disrupt any sites, so I haven't updated any of my webservers. However, I'm thinking that it's past time for me to update... Best, Bob Patin Longterm Solutions bob@longtermsolutions.com 615-333-6858 http://www.longtermsolutions.com Member of FileMaker Business Alliance and FileMaker TechNet CONTACT US VIA INSTANT MESSAGING: AIM or iChat: longterm1954 Yahoo: longterm_solutions MSN: tech@longtermsolutions.com ICQ: 159333060 -------------------------- Contact us for FileMaker hosting and programming for all versions of FileMaker PHP ? CDML ? Full email services ? Free DNS hosting ? Colocation ? Consulting On Feb 1, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Chris Hansen wrote: > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving > FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a > version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still > using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? From dness at bondedbuilders.com Fri Feb 1 09:52:59 2008 From: dness at bondedbuilders.com (David Ness) Date: Fri Feb 1 09:53:09 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8AA4E914BBCB55418F2253A5014A154C147DFB@exchange.bondedbuilders.com> 1 vote for v5: I'm using PHP Version 5.2.3. -----Original Message----- Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? --Chris Hansen From jschwartz at exit445.com Fri Feb 1 10:00:02 2008 From: jschwartz at exit445.com (Jonathan Schwartz) Date: Fri Feb 1 10:04:55 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:42 AM -0700 2/1/08, Chris Hansen wrote: >Hello List! > >In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving >FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a >version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still >using PHP4. > >So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? Started in PHP 4. Now in PHP5. Except for short tags and such, I really haven't seen (nor looked for) the difference. J -- Jonathan Schwartz Exit 445 Group jonathan@exit445.com http://www.exit445.com 415-381-1852 From info at visioncomputerconsulting.com Fri Feb 1 10:11:03 2008 From: info at visioncomputerconsulting.com (Vision Computer Consulting) Date: Fri Feb 1 10:11:16 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am using OO PHP4 to get ready for PHP5. I don't have my own servers so I can't control the version PHP. On Feb 1, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Chris Hansen wrote: > Hello List! > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be > moving FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to > freeze a version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people > are still using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list From fx at 9degrees.com Fri Feb 1 10:18:28 2008 From: fx at 9degrees.com (Michael Layne) Date: Fri Feb 1 10:18:39 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C373601-4572-4856-ADA5-B2716C76B096@9degrees.com> PHP5 for 80% of current and recent project work. I saw a book in Barnes & Noble yesterday for PHP6 and MySQL. PHP4 is "dead" according to php.net. I realize many folks still use it and develop for it, but it is probably time to start moving forward, no matter how "safe" we feel in PHP4. Another vote for PHP5. On Feb 1, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Chris Hansen wrote: > Hello List! > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving > FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a > version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still > using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list From adenman at tmea.org Fri Feb 1 12:55:25 2008 From: adenman at tmea.org (Andrew Denman) Date: Fri Feb 1 12:52:53 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Finding non-empty fields? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005a01c8650c$62e225a0$28a670e0$@org> Did you try this? I swear I've done this somewhere before through FX.php but I can't remember where at the moment. $calendarQuery->AddDBParam('Class', '*', 'eq'); Andrew Denman -----Original Message----- From: fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org [mailto:fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Futter Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:15 PM To: FX.php Discussion List Subject: [FX.php List] Finding non-empty fields? Hi All, I'd like to be able to find a sub-set of records in a database where a particular field contains data - ie, is non-empty. Obviously I can go to the trouble of filtering the data set in PHP once it's in the FX array, but I'd prefer to do it at the source if I can. So far, nothing I've tried has worked, such as: $calendarQuery->AddDBParam('Class', '*'); $calendarQuery->AddDBParam('Class', '', 'gt'); I've tried combinations of double and single quotes (as well as no quotes), also to no effect. The data concerned is plain text. I'm sure this can be done, I just can't figure it out! Kev -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ############################################################################ ######### This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ############################################################################ ######### This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is virus or error free. The attached files are provided and may only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College. _______________________________________________ FX.php_List mailing list FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list From adenman at tmea.org Fri Feb 1 12:57:44 2008 From: adenman at tmea.org (Andrew Denman) Date: Fri Feb 1 12:55:11 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] [Off, I think] Address field names and tricks In-Reply-To: <3715321.191361201880902438.JavaMail.tcmeyers@troymeyers.com> References: <3715321.191361201880902438.JavaMail.tcmeyers@troymeyers.com> Message-ID: <005b01c8650c$b5e202c0$21a60840$@org> Troy, Check out the note and link at the very bottom of this page: http://toolbar.google.com/autofill_help.html Andrew Denman -----Original Message----- From: fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org [mailto:fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org] On Behalf Of Troy Meyers Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:48 AM To: FX.php Discussion List Subject: Re: [FX.php List] [Off, I think] Address field names and tricks ggt, Thank you. I set up a simple test form to try these out for autofill: http://lab.troymeyers.com/flasking/autofilltest.php Please try the page and attempt "autofill". In Safari when I click the autofill button, some of these do indeed fill in with my usual values, but not all of the ones I'd expect to. Does autofill work by looking at the name attribute of input fields? Is there an online reference for what browsers look for when attempting autofill? -Troy > This should be the the standard, as of off the top of my head > > name > > address > > zip > > town > > areaCounty > > country > > phonenumber > > direct > > cellularphone > > fax > > epost > > webaddress > > The only thing in the addresspart that really changes from country to > country is the location of zip vs town, either it's <> <> or > <>, <> > > That said, sometimes there are several lines of address, but that only > calls for parsing, so I find it simpler to work with and less headaches > to use textarea as form object type. > > ggt _______________________________________________ FX.php_List mailing list FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list From dbengston at preservationstudio.com Fri Feb 1 16:03:23 2008 From: dbengston at preservationstudio.com (Dale Bengston) Date: Fri Feb 1 16:03:37 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B1094B2-AE15-41FA-B495-DD200CCC79B1@preservationstudio.com> We vote for PHP5. Since PHP4 was "discontinued" a while back, we have been encouraging clients to upgrade as well. Dale -- Dale Bengston Partner, The Whole Brain Group, LLC TheWholeBrainGroup.com On Feb 1, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Chris Hansen wrote: > Hello List! > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving > FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a > version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still > using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list From csinfo at comcast.net Sat Feb 2 09:23:18 2008 From: csinfo at comcast.net (John Funk) Date: Sat Feb 2 09:17:43 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have 1 production server using 4 and one test server using 5. Not sure about upgrading the production server since it is out of my control. Thanks, John On 2/1/08 10:42 AM, "Chris Hansen" wrote: > Hello List! > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving > FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a > version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still > using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list From igsmasupport at igsmasouth.org Sat Feb 2 19:21:57 2008 From: igsmasupport at igsmasouth.org (Jon Montgomery) Date: Sat Feb 2 19:22:15 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am using PHP 5. Jon Montgomery On 2/1/08 10:42 AM, "Chris Hansen" wrote: > Hello List! > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving > FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a > version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still > using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz Sun Feb 3 02:44:53 2008 From: steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz (Steve Winter) Date: Sun Feb 3 02:45:22 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080203094519.94AB86AA320@mail.iviking.org> Hi Chris, I still have a number of systems, programmes and servers on PHP 4.x however nothing's been done to them for quite some time now, aside from minor maintenance... Anything new in the last 18+ months has all been PHP 5... Cheers Steve On 2/1/08 10:42 AM, "Chris Hansen" wrote: > Hello List! > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving > FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a > version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still > using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > _______________________________________________ FX.php_List mailing list FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/02/2008 1:50 p.m. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/02/2008 1:50 p.m. From ggt667 at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 15:21:20 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Sun Feb 3 15:21:36 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: <71D311BB-C714-4C78-83B7-1D8FD6D5E0F0@iViking.org> References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> <71D311BB-C714-4C78-83B7-1D8FD6D5E0F0@iViking.org> Message-ID: Well, while you are first at it Chris, asking for contributions, I would like to add that any technology would be nice to have in the distribution using index.php and detail.php as template, lajax, jquery, smarty and so on. G. G. Thorsen 2008/2/1, Chris Hansen : > Leo (& List - especially the second paragraph on), > > To what extent do you want FX.php to be object oriented? Right now FX > uses two objects: a monolithic connection object (which can even be > used to return query metadata), and an error object. The only thing > you _have_ to get as an array is the returned records, and in recent > releases, that array usually need only be two levels deep. I was > thinking yesterday about the sense of splitting the individual > connection types into separate objects, but I believe that FileMaker > has gone way over the top in how object oriented their API is. Why? > Persistence and verbosity. Of course there are many places where it > makes sense to go heavy on the OO side (and Java, for one, is all > about OO), but when I work with the FileMaker API for PHP, the objects > I'm creating feel to me like they're not designed for a non-persistent > environment like the Web. I feel like FAP is designed the way that I > would build a desktop application. > > All that said, I'm willing to be convinced. I was a fervent lasso > supporter until 2001 when Chris Adams (who worked with me on FX.php > 1.0) showed me that what I'd been told about PHP being much more > difficult than Lasso was bunk. I'm willing to be convinced, but I > need to know what bits you think need to be more object-oriented, and > why. And be specific =) Also, keep in mind that objects can add > overhead, and I believe that's a big part of the reason why FAP is so > much slower than FX.php. Finally, remember that FX is open-source: > Gjermund nagged me mercilessly, and sent a plethora of code bits and > examples of how it was done elsewhere until I got UTF-8 support > working; when Steve Lane wanted OO error handling, he sent me a > suitably updated version of FX.php which required relatively few > tweaks to turn it into a releasable version; Masayuki Nii created a > version of FX which added character encoding support; and on and on > (see CHANGES.txt for the full list of who has done what...) > > So, here's what you can do if you want something in FX.php, in no > particular order: > > 1) Tell me you want it, and why it should be part of FX.php; > > 2) Send me and example of something that has what you want (ideally, > actual code, even if it requires significant modification); > > 3) Add the code to FX.php, and send me the updated version; > > 4) Create a tool that can be used with FX.php, and submit it as an > addition to a future release. > > As a final thought, in a release of FX.php in the near future, I will > be moving to the PHP5 object model (and making some internals of the > code protected, etc.) At that point I'll add some getter and setter > methods, and the last version supporting PHP4 will be frozen but > available for those who need it. At first, I'll only lock people out > of the methods and attributes that they shouldn't be touching anyway > (I've seen some ..er.. interesting code at times =), and the new > methods will be mostly added features, but a couple years down the > line, new versions of FX.php will require that attributes be set via > function. (Leo, if that's all you're after, then yes, we're heading > that way.) > > Best, > > --Chris > > On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. > > > > // Leo > > > > 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: > > > >> Greetings List! > >> > >> This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The > >> FileMaker API for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and > >> since I have a little test box in my basement with both FX.php and > >> F.A.P. installed on it, and F.A.P is no longer beta, I thought I'd > >> throw equivalent tests at it, and see what popped out. The results > >> REALLY surprised me: > >> > >> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 > >> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 > >> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 > >> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 > >> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 > >> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 > >> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 > >> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 > >> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 > >> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 > >> > >> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 > >> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 > >> > >> In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by > >> simulating load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. > >> Also, although the server in question is running the latest version > >> of FileMaker Server Advanced 9, it only has a developer license > >> installed, so I had to keep repetitions very low, but I would > >> expect results to scale similarly as server load and available > >> connections were increased. Also, the test box is a Mac Mini, so > >> you could handle a lot more lot with faster hardware. I've > >> attached my test code. > >> > >> --Chris Hansen > >> FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > >> FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > >> Creator of FX.php > >> "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > >> www.iViking.org > >> > >> On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more > >>> integrated to the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both > >>> of them communicated with the server using XML and parses it on > >>> their side. The PHP stuff you see on the server and in its > >>> permissions are most likely just administrative stuff FM put in > >>> there to integrate the PHP part with the server as a whole a bit > >>> more. > >>> > >>> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object > >>> oriented whereas FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean > >>> and similar to the rest of my code. I have no doubt that FX.php > >>> works just as well though. > >>> > >>> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons > >>> between the two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB > >>> backend will never be fast, but perhaps there's some difference in > >>> speed between the two anyway? Perhaps they parse XML differently > >>> or something. > >>> > >>> // Leo > >>> > >>> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: > >>> > >>>> Greetings all? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I'm looking for; > >>>> > >>>> a. gut feelings > >>>> > >>>> b. opinions > >>>> > >>>> c. evidence > >>>> > >>>> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native FMP > >>>> PHP interface or using FX.php?? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I was under the impression that 'native' FMP PHP is simply an > >>>> alternative to FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? > >>>> that said I've also noticed that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP > >>>> interface listed, which makes me wonder if in fact it has hooks > >>>> directly into the server?.?? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> As I said, any information greatly received? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> FX.php_List mailing list > >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > > > > -| > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FX.php_List mailing list > > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From ggt667 at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 15:51:13 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Sun Feb 3 15:51:29 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: <20080203094519.94AB86AA320@mail.iviking.org> References: <20080203094519.94AB86AA320@mail.iviking.org> Message-ID: 9 votes(nodes) for php4 1 vote(node) for php5 ggt 2008/2/3, Steve Winter : > Hi Chris, > > I still have a number of systems, programmes and servers on PHP 4.x however > nothing's been done to them for quite some time now, aside from minor > maintenance... > > Anything new in the last 18+ months has all been PHP 5... > > Cheers > Steve > > > > On 2/1/08 10:42 AM, "Chris Hansen" wrote: > > > Hello List! > > > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving > > FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a > > version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still > > using PHP4. > > > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > > > --Chris Hansen > > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > > Creator of FX.php > > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > > www.iViking.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FX.php_List mailing list > > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/02/2008 > 1:50 p.m. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/02/2008 > 1:50 p.m. > > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz Mon Feb 4 04:33:48 2008 From: steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz (Steve Winter) Date: Mon Feb 4 04:34:14 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Command line tool on FMS9 Message-ID: Hi, I'm working on a solution which means that I need to open and close databases on the server itself. I was able to write the necessary code (PHP, using exec() to call fmsadmin.exe), and all tested fine on my FMS8/win2003 setup. The server that this solution is to end up on has FMS9, which flatly refuses to play, even from a command prompt when logged on to the machine, let alone from PHP. The machine is a managed server. I can't login as the administrator, but the account that I have has administrator privileges, and even when opening the command prompt, navigating to the correct directory and trying to run the CLI, I get asked for credentials 3 times, then I get told permission denied, Error 9. The serer help file unhelpfully doesn't have an error number 9 listed, but I'm guessing it's, oh, permission denied.?? So, has anyone been able to get the CLI of FMS 9 to function on win2003.? Cheers Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080204/d7a56735/attachment.html From adenman at tmea.org Mon Feb 4 09:04:16 2008 From: adenman at tmea.org (Andrew Denman) Date: Mon Feb 4 09:01:49 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007c01c86747$97be28e0$c73a7aa0$@org> PHP 5 here Andrew Denman -----Original Message----- From: fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org [mailto:fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hansen Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:43 AM To: FX.php Discussion List Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? Hello List! In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still using PHP4. So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? --Chris Hansen FileMaker 8 Certified Developer FileMaker 7 Certified Developer Creator of FX.php "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." www.iViking.org _______________________________________________ FX.php_List mailing list FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list From jamie at liquis.com Mon Feb 4 10:56:47 2008 From: jamie at liquis.com (Jamie Adams) Date: Mon Feb 4 10:57:11 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? Message-ID: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> Hello all- My company is considering building an auction script (like a private eBay) for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One suggestion from our team was to build PHP auction scripts that connect directly to our FileMaker DB. However, I've observed that the performance of FileMaker with FX.php is not quite as good as MySQL in many circumstances. Near the end of an auction, we might have as many as 40 bidders hitting the database with quick succession. Can FX.php take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to look into exporting to MySQL? I'm going to try some tests myself, but I hoped to draw from the collective wisdom first. I've learned some tricks for optimizing my FX.php code to load quicker, but I've never tested under such a heavy load. Jamie Adams ________________________________________________________ Liquis, Inc. 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 ________________________________________________________ www.liquis.com www.auctionpartner.com www.furniture-partner.com eBay Store: http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment?refid=store -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080204/2194f200/attachment.html From ggt667 at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 11:04:16 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Mon Feb 4 11:04:39 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> Message-ID: Depends alot on whether or not you do apache separate from FileMaker Sever. ggt 2008/2/4, Jamie Adams : > > > > > Hello all- > > > > My company is considering building an auction script (like a private eBay) > for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One suggestion from our team > was to build PHP auction scripts that connect directly to our FileMaker DB. > However, I've observed that the performance of FileMaker with FX.php is not > quite as good as MySQL in many circumstances. Near the end of an auction, > we might have as many as 40 bidders hitting the database with quick > succession. Can FX.php take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to look into > exporting to MySQL? I'm going to try some tests myself, but I hoped to draw > from the collective wisdom first. I've learned some tricks for optimizing > my FX.php code to load quicker, but I've never tested under such a heavy > load. > > > > > > Jamie Adams > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > Liquis, Inc. > > > > 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 > > phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > www.liquis.com > > www.auctionpartner.com > > www.furniture-partner.com > > eBay Store: > http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment?refid=store > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > From steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz Mon Feb 4 11:16:00 2008 From: steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz (Steve Winter) Date: Mon Feb 4 11:16:27 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> Message-ID: <225EB1A0DB5F40E68294264710764C66@matatirosolutions.co.uk> Hi Jamie, To be honest, I'd doubt it. especially if you've got multiple auctions all ending at the same time. Even if you separate your web-server from your filemaker server, optimise your code down as far as possible, minimise the number of calls to the database (and do extra post-processing by PHP), etc, the single threaded nature of the XML interface will likely as not still be your undoing. I built a solution a while back which always had 10 simultaneous users, doing lots of different things, requiring lots of hits on the db. I had FMS running on one machine, Apache on another, all delivered over a 54Mb wireless LAN and there were still times when there were visible delays in getting data to users. If I were looking to do something like this I'd be inclined to look at ways to integrate a MySQL database for the site, with the live inventory data to/from FileMaker. YMWV (your millage will vary ;-) Cheers Steve _____ From: fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org [mailto:fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Adams Sent: 04 February 2008 17:57 To: fx.php_list@mail.iviking.org Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? Hello all- My company is considering building an auction script (like a private eBay) for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One suggestion from our team was to build PHP auction scripts that connect directly to our FileMaker DB. However, I've observed that the performance of FileMaker with FX.php is not quite as good as MySQL in many circumstances. Near the end of an auction, we might have as many as 40 bidders hitting the database with quick succession. Can FX.php take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to look into exporting to MySQL? I'm going to try some tests myself, but I hoped to draw from the collective wisdom first. I've learned some tricks for optimizing my FX.php code to load quicker, but I've never tested under such a heavy load. Jamie Adams ________________________________________________________ Liquis, Inc. 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 ________________________________________________________ www.liquis.com www.auctionpartner.com www.furniture-partner.com eBay Store: http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment?refid=store -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080204/abf6dc64/attachment.html From ggt667 at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 11:41:20 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Mon Feb 4 11:41:38 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: <225EB1A0DB5F40E68294264710764C66@matatirosolutions.co.uk> References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> <225EB1A0DB5F40E68294264710764C66@matatirosolutions.co.uk> Message-ID: Whatever you do DO NEVER run server service over WLAN!!! That's really killing performance, I run separate NICs for database looksups from webservers and application servers over link nets ( netmask 255.255.255.252 ) for ultimate performance. ggt 2008/2/4, Steve Winter : > > > > > Hi Jamie, > > > > To be honest, I'd doubt it? especially if you've got multiple auctions all > ending at the same time? > > > > Even if you separate your web-server from your filemaker server, optimise > your code down as far as possible, minimise the number of calls to the > database (and do extra post-processing by PHP), etc, the single threaded > nature of the XML interface will likely as not still be your undoing? > > > > I built a solution a while back which always had 10 simultaneous users, > doing lots of different things, requiring lots of hits on the db. I had FMS > running on one machine, Apache on another, all delivered over a 54Mb > wireless LAN and there were still times when there were visible delays in > getting data to users? > > > > If I were looking to do something like this I'd be inclined to look at ways > to integrate a MySQL database for the site, with the live inventory data > to/from FileMaker? > > > > YMWV (your millage will vary ;-) > > > > Cheers > > Steve > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org > [mailto:fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org] On Behalf Of > Jamie Adams > Sent: 04 February 2008 17:57 > To: fx.php_list@mail.iviking.org > Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? > > > > > Hello all- > > > > My company is considering building an auction script (like a private eBay) > for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One suggestion from our team > was to build PHP auction scripts that connect directly to our FileMaker DB. > However, I've observed that the performance of FileMaker with FX.php is not > quite as good as MySQL in many circumstances. Near the end of an auction, > we might have as many as 40 bidders hitting the database with quick > succession. Can FX.php take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to look into > exporting to MySQL? I'm going to try some tests myself, but I hoped to draw > from the collective wisdom first. I've learned some tricks for optimizing > my FX.php code to load quicker, but I've never tested under such a heavy > load. > > > > > > Jamie Adams > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > Liquis, Inc. > > > > 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 > > phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > www.liquis.com > > www.auctionpartner.com > > www.furniture-partner.com > > eBay Store: > http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment?refid=store > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > From fx at 9degrees.com Mon Feb 4 14:25:17 2008 From: fx at 9degrees.com (Michael Layne) Date: Mon Feb 4 14:25:37 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> Message-ID: I know I'm not offering a dissertation on WHY, but if it's something that is expecting a great deal of traffic and hits/bandwidth usage, I'd strongly consider MySQL. It can be infinitely faster. HTH On Feb 4, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Jamie Adams wrote: > Hello all- > > > > My company is considering building an auction script (like a private > eBay) for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One suggestion > from our team was to build PHP auction scripts that connect directly > to our FileMaker DB. However, I?ve observed that the performance of > FileMaker with FX.php is not quite as good as MySQL in many > circumstances. Near the end of an auction, we might have as many as > 40 bidders hitting the database with quick succession. Can FX.php > take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to look into exporting to > MySQL? I?m going to try some tests myself, but I hoped to draw from > the collective wisdom first. I?ve learned some tricks for > optimizing my FX.php code to load quicker, but I?ve never tested > under such a heavy load. > > > > > > Jamie Adams > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > Liquis, Inc. > > > > 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 > > phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > www.liquis.com > > www.auctionpartner.com > > www.furniture-partner.com > > eBay Store: http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment?refid=store > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080204/e6cc708a/attachment-0001.html From tim at nicheit.com.au Mon Feb 4 15:19:49 2008 From: tim at nicheit.com.au (Tim 'Webko' Booth) Date: Mon Feb 4 15:21:08 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> Message-ID: <1FA2CCD5-B750-44EE-BBCC-D82F64E8E822@nicheit.com.au> On 05/02/2008, at 8:25 AM, Michael Layne wrote: > I know I'm not offering a dissertation on WHY, but if it's something > that is expecting a great deal of traffic and hits/bandwidth usage, > I'd strongly consider MySQL. It can be infinitely faster. I'd consider "infinitely" to be a pretty big call... As a point of comparison, I built a similar type of thing in CDML some years ago which also showed in the logs as having up to 50 users towards the closing time of auctions. Don't get me wrong, there was some slowdown at times [1] but the system worked - and that was running on FMS5.5 on a G4, with distribution through a single G4 running Apache and 3 RAIC machines that were old PII and PIII boxes - IOW, about as far from an ideal setup as you can get. The number of users is not the issue - it's the number of database calls - if each page is making 5 queries, and they're all hitting Refresh every 2 seconds... well... Cheers Webko [1] We changed the close time to a time when the other systems running on the same boxes were not busy, which helped a lot From ggt667 at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 01:37:36 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Tue Feb 5 01:37:55 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: <1FA2CCD5-B750-44EE-BBCC-D82F64E8E822@nicheit.com.au> References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> <1FA2CCD5-B750-44EE-BBCC-D82F64E8E822@nicheit.com.au> Message-ID: The clue is; if you configure FMSA 8.0v4r2 correctly you should be able to go fast. FMS 9 is a little bit slower, but has more features... ggt 2008/2/4, Tim 'Webko' Booth : > > On 05/02/2008, at 8:25 AM, Michael Layne wrote: > > > I know I'm not offering a dissertation on WHY, but if it's something > > that is expecting a great deal of traffic and hits/bandwidth usage, > > I'd strongly consider MySQL. It can be infinitely faster. > > I'd consider "infinitely" to be a pretty big call... > > As a point of comparison, I built a similar type of thing in CDML some > years ago which also showed in the logs as having up to 50 users > towards the closing time of auctions. > > Don't get me wrong, there was some slowdown at times [1] but the > system worked - and that was running on FMS5.5 on a G4, with > distribution through a single G4 running Apache and 3 RAIC machines > that were old PII and PIII boxes - IOW, about as far from an ideal > setup as you can get. > > The number of users is not the issue - it's the number of database > calls - if each page is making 5 queries, and they're all hitting > Refresh every 2 seconds... well... > > Cheers > > Webko > [1] We changed the close time to a time when the other systems running > on the same boxes were not busy, which helped a lot > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From leo at finalresort.org Tue Feb 5 01:45:06 2008 From: leo at finalresort.org (Leo R. Lundgren) Date: Tue Feb 5 01:45:27 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> Message-ID: I would never use Filemaker for a serious production system where timing is of importance. And this I don't say because I'm not very fond of Filemaker in general, I'm saying it from an objective perspektive. 4 feb 2008 kl. 18.56 skrev Jamie Adams: > Hello all- > > > > My company is considering building an auction script (like a > private eBay) for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One > suggestion from our team was to build PHP auction scripts that > connect directly to our FileMaker DB. However, I?ve observed that > the performance of FileMaker with FX.php is not quite as good as > MySQL in many circumstances. Near the end of an auction, we might > have as many as 40 bidders hitting the database with quick > succession. Can FX.php take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to > look into exporting to MySQL? I?m going to try some tests myself, > but I hoped to draw from the collective wisdom first. I?ve learned > some tricks for optimizing my FX.php code to load quicker, but I?ve > never tested under such a heavy load. > > > > > > Jamie Adams > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > Liquis, Inc. > > > > 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 > > phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > www.liquis.com > > www.auctionpartner.com > > www.furniture-partner.com > > eBay Store: http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech- > Equipment?refid=store > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080205/3cc7b006/attachment.html From ggt667 at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 01:58:24 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Tue Feb 5 01:58:43 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> Message-ID: I have this type of systems running in FileMaker, MySQL and PostgreSQL, I can not think of any absolute definition of FileMaker not being the one, if you have configured FileMaker correctly; 2 or 3 nodes with separate 1 Gbit NICs for local interchange; direct cables not through hubs, I do also use this strategy for SQL servers as well this way webservers and appservers have direct access to their respective databases, without any potential noise. ggt 2008/2/5, Leo R. Lundgren : > I would never use Filemaker for a serious production system where timing is > of importance. And this I don't say because I'm not very fond of Filemaker > in general, I'm saying it from an objective perspektive. > > > 4 feb 2008 kl. 18.56 skrev Jamie Adams: > > > > Hello all- > > > > My company is considering building an auction script (like a private eBay) > for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One suggestion from our team > was to build PHP auction scripts that connect directly to our FileMaker DB. > However, I've observed that the performance of FileMaker with FX.php is not > quite as good as MySQL in many circumstances. Near the end of an auction, > we might have as many as 40 bidders hitting the database with quick > succession. Can FX.php take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to look into > exporting to MySQL? I'm going to try some tests myself, but I hoped to draw > from the collective wisdom first. I've learned some tricks for optimizing > my FX.php code to load quicker, but I've never tested under such a heavy > load. > > > > > > Jamie Adams > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > Liquis, Inc. > > > > 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 > > phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > www.liquis.com > > www.auctionpartner.com > > www.furniture-partner.com > > eBay Store: > http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment?refid=store > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > -| > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > From leo at finalresort.org Tue Feb 5 02:10:48 2008 From: leo at finalresort.org (Leo R. Lundgren) Date: Tue Feb 5 02:11:12 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> Message-ID: <7BEEAB8E-61D6-4F38-81F8-70A8FD1FDC29@finalresort.org> But an auction site with the mentioned requirements shouldn't require two or three nodes with separated webserver and database, gigabit interfaces and other network specifics, except for redundancy and high availability. But sure, if you throw enough resources at it, Filemaker will be enough :) Well, it's just my personal feeling/opinion that if I'd build a sensitive site, I'd something designed in another way than Filemaker is. If someone wants to go through all that setup to feel confident it'll run OK, no problem. But I do know that other setups will perform far better even on less hardware and less work. However I do recognize the fact that sometimes it's also important not to split a system in two parts, for example if it's a lot more convenient to keep all the information in the FM database. 5 feb 2008 kl. 09.58 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: > I have this type of systems running in FileMaker, MySQL and > PostgreSQL, I can not think of any absolute definition of FileMaker > not being the one, if you have configured FileMaker correctly; 2 or 3 > nodes with separate 1 Gbit NICs for local interchange; direct cables > not through hubs, I do also use this strategy for SQL servers as well > this way webservers and appservers have direct access to their > respective databases, without any potential noise. > > ggt > > 2008/2/5, Leo R. Lundgren : >> I would never use Filemaker for a serious production system where >> timing is >> of importance. And this I don't say because I'm not very fond of >> Filemaker >> in general, I'm saying it from an objective perspektive. >> >> >> 4 feb 2008 kl. 18.56 skrev Jamie Adams: >> >> >> >> Hello all- >> >> >> >> My company is considering building an auction script (like a >> private eBay) >> for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One suggestion from >> our team >> was to build PHP auction scripts that connect directly to our >> FileMaker DB. >> However, I've observed that the performance of FileMaker with >> FX.php is not >> quite as good as MySQL in many circumstances. Near the end of an >> auction, >> we might have as many as 40 bidders hitting the database with quick >> succession. Can FX.php take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to >> look into >> exporting to MySQL? I'm going to try some tests myself, but I >> hoped to draw >> from the collective wisdom first. I've learned some tricks for >> optimizing >> my FX.php code to load quicker, but I've never tested under such a >> heavy >> load. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jamie Adams >> >> ________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> Liquis, Inc. >> >> >> >> 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 >> >> phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 >> >> ________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> www.liquis.com >> >> www.auctionpartner.com >> >> www.furniture-partner.com >> >> eBay Store: >> http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment? >> refid=store >> _______________________________________________ >> FX.php_List mailing list >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >> >> >> -| >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FX.php_List mailing list >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >> >> > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -| From leo at finalresort.org Tue Feb 5 02:48:54 2008 From: leo at finalresort.org (Leo R. Lundgren) Date: Tue Feb 5 02:49:10 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <041FDA43-FDA0-4E39-84AB-044AEE68C369@finalresort.org> I'm using PHP5 exclusively. 1 feb 2008 kl. 17.42 skrev Chris Hansen: > Hello List! > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be > moving FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to > freeze a version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people > are still using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -| From leo at finalresort.org Tue Feb 5 03:06:08 2008 From: leo at finalresort.org (Leo R. Lundgren) Date: Tue Feb 5 03:06:28 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: <71D311BB-C714-4C78-83B7-1D8FD6D5E0F0@iViking.org> References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> <71D311BB-C714-4C78-83B7-1D8FD6D5E0F0@iViking.org> Message-ID: <6C1B5453-0CE9-45B8-A0D0-E187C2F0B4C2@finalresort.org> Chris, Thanks for taking your time on this :) Well, for me the reasons for running the FM PHP API instead of FX.php are quite simple. Part is that unless I *need* to run something else, I generally prefer to stick with the standard software shipped from the same party, which makes FPA the choice in this case. That is, of course, as long as it fulfills the needs I have, for example performance. Apparently, and I don't doubt it, FX.php is a bit faster for obvious reasons, but for me that hasn't been a showstopper yet, and as I've expressed in other threads I'd run something else than Filemaker if I need speed. I guess also part of my choice is that even though my opinions of Filemaker are what they are, I yet haven't let go of the hope that someday FPA will be better tuned and so on. Letting go of that hope would pretty much be to tell myself to stop using FM all the way :P Regarding the OO it's just that I'm somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to my code, and so I like to keep it clean. I don't like to handle arrays all over the place, but that's pretty much it. Until there's a deeper technical reason for me to use FX I'll stick to the OO-looking code :) So to answer your question, I personally don't have a real reason to ask you to make FX more OO. You're probably correct that doing so would impose more performance penalty than what it would gain in ease of use, or at least I wouldn't be surprised. I just presume OO handling in PHP is a bit heavier than array handling. As long as people are happy using FX.php the way it is, that's just fine in my opinion. Also, I think that most people that start using FX haven't used any of the products before. By that I mean that the ones who do either move to FX from FPA, and if so it's for a reason and then they don't care about stuff like arrays instead of OO syntax, and if they haven't used any of the products then they'll probably be happy anyway :) 1 feb 2008 kl. 17.39 skrev Chris Hansen: > Leo (& List - especially the second paragraph on), > > To what extent do you want FX.php to be object oriented? Right now > FX uses two objects: a monolithic connection object (which can even > be used to return query metadata), and an error object. The only > thing you _have_ to get as an array is the returned records, and in > recent releases, that array usually need only be two levels deep. > I was thinking yesterday about the sense of splitting the > individual connection types into separate objects, but I believe > that FileMaker has gone way over the top in how object oriented > their API is. Why? Persistence and verbosity. Of course there > are many places where it makes sense to go heavy on the OO side > (and Java, for one, is all about OO), but when I work with the > FileMaker API for PHP, the objects I'm creating feel to me like > they're not designed for a non-persistent environment like the > Web. I feel like FAP is designed the way that I would build a > desktop application. > > All that said, I'm willing to be convinced. I was a fervent lasso > supporter until 2001 when Chris Adams (who worked with me on FX.php > 1.0) showed me that what I'd been told about PHP being much more > difficult than Lasso was bunk. I'm willing to be convinced, but I > need to know what bits you think need to be more object-oriented, > and why. And be specific =) Also, keep in mind that objects can > add overhead, and I believe that's a big part of the reason why FAP > is so much slower than FX.php. Finally, remember that FX is open- > source: Gjermund nagged me mercilessly, and sent a plethora of code > bits and examples of how it was done elsewhere until I got UTF-8 > support working; when Steve Lane wanted OO error handling, he sent > me a suitably updated version of FX.php which required relatively > few tweaks to turn it into a releasable version; Masayuki Nii > created a version of FX which added character encoding support; and > on and on (see CHANGES.txt for the full list of who has done what...) > > So, here's what you can do if you want something in FX.php, in no > particular order: > > 1) Tell me you want it, and why it should be part of FX.php; > > 2) Send me and example of something that has what you want > (ideally, actual code, even if it requires significant modification); > > 3) Add the code to FX.php, and send me the updated version; > > 4) Create a tool that can be used with FX.php, and submit it as an > addition to a future release. > > As a final thought, in a release of FX.php in the near future, I > will be moving to the PHP5 object model (and making some internals > of the code protected, etc.) At that point I'll add some getter > and setter methods, and the last version supporting PHP4 will be > frozen but available for those who need it. At first, I'll only > lock people out of the methods and attributes that they shouldn't > be touching anyway (I've seen some ..er.. interesting code at times > =), and the new methods will be mostly added features, but a couple > years down the line, new versions of FX.php will require that > attributes be set via function. (Leo, if that's all you're after, > then yes, we're heading that way.) > > Best, > > --Chris > > On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: > >> Chris, >> >> Any chance of FX.php becoming OO anytime soon? Would be nice. >> >> // Leo >> >> 31 jan 2008 kl. 19.03 skrev Chris Hansen: >> >>> Greetings List! >>> >>> This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The >>> FileMaker API for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and >>> since I have a little test box in my basement with both FX.php >>> and F.A.P. installed on it, and F.A.P is no longer beta, I >>> thought I'd throw equivalent tests at it, and see what popped >>> out. The results REALLY surprised me: >>> >>> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 >>> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 >>> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 >>> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 >>> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 >>> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 >>> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 >>> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 >>> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 >>> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 >>> >>> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 >>> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 >>> >>> In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by >>> simulating load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. >>> Also, although the server in question is running the latest >>> version of FileMaker Server Advanced 9, it only has a developer >>> license installed, so I had to keep repetitions very low, but I >>> would expect results to scale similarly as server load and >>> available connections were increased. Also, the test box is a >>> Mac Mini, so you could handle a lot more lot with faster >>> hardware. I've attached my test code. >>> >>> --Chris Hansen >>> FileMaker 8 Certified Developer >>> FileMaker 7 Certified Developer >>> Creator of FX.php >>> "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." >>> www.iViking.org >>> >>> On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more >>>> integrated to the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, >>>> both of them communicated with the server using XML and parses >>>> it on their side. The PHP stuff you see on the server and in its >>>> permissions are most likely just administrative stuff FM put in >>>> there to integrate the PHP part with the server as a whole a bit >>>> more. >>>> >>>> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object >>>> oriented whereas FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it >>>> clean and similar to the rest of my code. I have no doubt that >>>> FX.php works just as well though. >>>> >>>> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons >>>> between the two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a >>>> DB backend will never be fast, but perhaps there's some >>>> difference in speed between the two anyway? Perhaps they parse >>>> XML differently or something. >>>> >>>> // Leo >>>> >>>> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter: >>>> >>>>> Greetings all? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I?m looking for; >>>>> >>>>> a. gut feelings >>>>> >>>>> b. opinions >>>>> >>>>> c. evidence >>>>> >>>>> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native >>>>> FMP PHP interface or using FX.php?? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was under the impression that ?native? FMP PHP is simply an >>>>> alternative to FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface? >>>>> that said I?ve also noticed that in FMS 9 there is actually a >>>>> PHP interface listed, which makes me wonder if in fact it has >>>>> hooks directly into the server?.?? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I said, any information greatly received? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FX.php_List mailing list >>> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list >> >> >> -| >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FX.php_List mailing list >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -| From ggt667 at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 03:33:54 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Tue Feb 5 03:34:15 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] How much traffic can it take? In-Reply-To: <7BEEAB8E-61D6-4F38-81F8-70A8FD1FDC29@finalresort.org> References: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D5A4@domainserv.mshome.net> <7BEEAB8E-61D6-4F38-81F8-70A8FD1FDC29@finalresort.org> Message-ID: And sometimes hobby should remain hobby, not making optimal infrastructure is a lack of effort in my opinion. 2008/2/5, Leo R. Lundgren : > But an auction site with the mentioned requirements shouldn't require > two or three nodes with separated webserver and database, gigabit > interfaces and other network specifics, except for redundancy and > high availability. > > But sure, if you throw enough resources at it, Filemaker will be > enough :) > > Well, it's just my personal feeling/opinion that if I'd build a > sensitive site, I'd something designed in another way than Filemaker > is. If someone wants to go through all that setup to feel confident > it'll run OK, no problem. But I do know that other setups will > perform far better even on less hardware and less work. However I do > recognize the fact that sometimes it's also important not to split a > system in two parts, for example if it's a lot more convenient to > keep all the information in the FM database. > > 5 feb 2008 kl. 09.58 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: > > > I have this type of systems running in FileMaker, MySQL and > > PostgreSQL, I can not think of any absolute definition of FileMaker > > not being the one, if you have configured FileMaker correctly; 2 or 3 > > nodes with separate 1 Gbit NICs for local interchange; direct cables > > not through hubs, I do also use this strategy for SQL servers as well > > this way webservers and appservers have direct access to their > > respective databases, without any potential noise. > > > > ggt > > > > 2008/2/5, Leo R. Lundgren : > >> I would never use Filemaker for a serious production system where > >> timing is > >> of importance. And this I don't say because I'm not very fond of > >> Filemaker > >> in general, I'm saying it from an objective perspektive. > >> > >> > >> 4 feb 2008 kl. 18.56 skrev Jamie Adams: > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello all- > >> > >> > >> > >> My company is considering building an auction script (like a > >> private eBay) > >> for some inventory in our FileMaker database. One suggestion from > >> our team > >> was to build PHP auction scripts that connect directly to our > >> FileMaker DB. > >> However, I've observed that the performance of FileMaker with > >> FX.php is not > >> quite as good as MySQL in many circumstances. Near the end of an > >> auction, > >> we might have as many as 40 bidders hitting the database with quick > >> succession. Can FX.php take this kind of abuse? Or do I need to > >> look into > >> exporting to MySQL? I'm going to try some tests myself, but I > >> hoped to draw > >> from the collective wisdom first. I've learned some tricks for > >> optimizing > >> my FX.php code to load quicker, but I've never tested under such a > >> heavy > >> load. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Jamie Adams > >> > >> ________________________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> Liquis, Inc. > >> > >> > >> > >> 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 > >> > >> phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 > >> > >> ________________________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> www.liquis.com > >> > >> www.auctionpartner.com > >> > >> www.furniture-partner.com > >> > >> eBay Store: > >> http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment? > >> refid=store > >> _______________________________________________ > >> FX.php_List mailing list > >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > >> > >> > >> -| > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> FX.php_List mailing list > >> FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > >> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > FX.php_List mailing list > > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > -| > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From ggt667 at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 03:51:14 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Tue Feb 5 03:51:33 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: <6C1B5453-0CE9-45B8-A0D0-E187C2F0B4C2@finalresort.org> References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> <71D311BB-C714-4C78-83B7-1D8FD6D5E0F0@iViking.org> <6C1B5453-0CE9-45B8-A0D0-E187C2F0B4C2@finalresort.org> Message-ID: > Apparently, and I don't doubt it, FX.php is a bit faster for obvious reasons, As proven here: > >>> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 > >>> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 > >>> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 > >>> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 > >>> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 > >>> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 > >>> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 > >>> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 > >>> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 > >>> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 > >>> > >>> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 > >>> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 By a factor of 7.74 times From leo at finalresort.org Tue Feb 5 03:52:53 2008 From: leo at finalresort.org (Leo R. Lundgren) Date: Tue Feb 5 03:53:12 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> <71D311BB-C714-4C78-83B7-1D8FD6D5E0F0@iViking.org> <6C1B5453-0CE9-45B8-A0D0-E187C2F0B4C2@finalresort.org> Message-ID: Uhm, yes? That's what i meant. 5 feb 2008 kl. 11.51 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: >> Apparently, and I don't doubt it, FX.php is a bit faster for >> obvious reasons, > > As proven here: > >>>>> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 >>>>> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 >>>>> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 >>>>> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 >>>>> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 >>>>> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 >>>>> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 >>>>> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 >>>>> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 >>>>> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 >>>>> >>>>> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 >>>>> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 > > By a factor of 7.74 times > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list -| From ggt667 at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 04:20:43 2008 From: ggt667 at gmail.com (Gjermund Gusland Thorsen) Date: Tue Feb 5 04:21:01 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...?? In-Reply-To: References: <1A1DA8FF17A5478AA77263A8949F1E75@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <088D0BB1-54DA-48B7-8D48-123A7FF8286E@finalresort.org> <06FBB2D2-4302-4CD8-A722-D9E8FA269190@iViking.org> <71D311BB-C714-4C78-83B7-1D8FD6D5E0F0@iViking.org> <6C1B5453-0CE9-45B8-A0D0-E187C2F0B4C2@finalresort.org> Message-ID: That is the same difference in speed as for IWP vs FileMaker XML and Lasso vs FileMaker XML FX.php practically has no overhead to the extent possible, by physical laws and current infrastructure. For a single query that does not matter, but when it comes to 200'000+ queries pr day ggt 2008/2/5, Leo R. Lundgren : > Uhm, yes? That's what i meant. > > 5 feb 2008 kl. 11.51 skrev Gjermund Gusland Thorsen: > > >> Apparently, and I don't doubt it, FX.php is a bit faster for > >> obvious reasons, > > > > As proven here: > > > >>>>> * F.A.P.: 14.6196269989 > >>>>> * FX.php: 1.72123408318 > >>>>> * F.A.P.: 14.7427921295 > >>>>> * FX.php: 1.68022203445 > >>>>> * F.A.P.: 15.8884699345 > >>>>> * FX.php: 2.96020698547 > >>>>> * F.A.P.: 14.6040740013 > >>>>> * FX.php: 1.64016890526 > >>>>> * F.A.P.: 15.450097084 > >>>>> * FX.php: 1.72534799576 > >>>>> > >>>>> Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296 > >>>>> Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082 > > > > By a factor of 7.74 times > > _______________________________________________ > > FX.php_List mailing list > > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > > > -| > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > From kfutter at sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au Tue Feb 5 15:41:20 2008 From: kfutter at sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au (Kevin Futter) Date: Tue Feb 5 15:41:45 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes Chris, we're still using PHP4, and have no immediate plans to move to v5 in our production environment. In fact, we don't even have any spare servers at the moment to roll out a testing environment... Kev On 2/2/08 3:42 AM, "Chris Hansen" wrote: > Hello List! > > In my recent (long) email, I noted that down the line I'll be moving > FX.php to the PHP5 OO model. However, I don't want to freeze a > version of FX.php with PHP4 support, while too many people are still > using PHP4. > > So, who out there is still using PHP4 with FX.php? > > --Chris Hansen > FileMaker 8 Certified Developer > FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > Creator of FX.php > "The best way from FileMaker to the Web." > www.iViking.org > > > _______________________________________________ > FX.php_List mailing list > FX.php_List@mail.iviking.org > http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list > -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ##################################################################################### This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ##################################################################################### This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is virus or error free. The attached files are provided and may only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College. From jamie at liquis.com Tue Feb 5 15:50:05 2008 From: jamie at liquis.com (Jamie Adams) Date: Tue Feb 5 15:50:26 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Re: How much traffic can it take? Message-ID: <6DCA1A1CB2A05E4A9D3C80CC1681A5EA81D6A5@domainserv.mshome.net> Thanks for all the advice. Sounds like it's at least worth a try. I can build some scripts to test my FX.php setup, and see if it can take the traffic. Even if I find the auction tool to be too much of a strain on our servers, I'll get a clearer idea of what I CAN do with FX.php. Jamie Adams ________________________________________________________ Liquis, Inc. 400 Parker Drive, Suite 1110, Austin, TX 78728 phone 512.299.9634, ext 103 -- fax 512.873.0575 ________________________________________________________ www.liquis.com www.auctionpartner.com www.furniture-partner.com eBay Store: http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Partner-High-Tech-Equipment?refid=store -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080205/9ad50473/attachment.html From tim at nicheit.com.au Tue Feb 5 15:52:14 2008 From: tim at nicheit.com.au (Tim 'Webko' Booth) Date: Tue Feb 5 15:53:30 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Who's still using PHP4? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <08E5E8C0-7242-4344-B6D9-119D169844A2@nicheit.com.au> We're also currently using various flavours of PHP 4 on production web servers as well as 5 on our own db webserver... From steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz Wed Feb 6 11:53:52 2008 From: steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz (Steve Winter) Date: Wed Feb 6 11:54:26 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Where are my value lists...? Message-ID: <93C66FFB8EDE4E18A92F05A05B2C14D9@matatirosolutions.co.uk> Hi all, I've never used values lists previous that were actually defined as a list, I've always stored then in a table, and used FX to get the data directly... I'm currently working on someone else's database, and they have a number of valuelists defined in the database. The preference is to use them 'as is', however the valuelists component of the returned array is empty... what am I missing...? Thanks Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080206/9ca13430/attachment.html From steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz Wed Feb 6 11:57:50 2008 From: steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz (Steve Winter) Date: Wed Feb 6 11:58:20 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Where are my value lists...? In-Reply-To: <93C66FFB8EDE4E18A92F05A05B2C14D9@matatirosolutions.co.uk> References: <93C66FFB8EDE4E18A92F05A05B2C14D9@matatirosolutions.co.uk> Message-ID: <30AC98C10DC7485AA6B95AF87663E5FA@matatirosolutions.co.uk> Hmmm... okay so I sort-of found them... if I perform a Find on the layout they are not returned, if I perform a View they are... seems a little odd to me...?? Thanks Steve _____ From: fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org [mailto:fx.php_list-bounces@mail.iviking.org] On Behalf Of Steve Winter Sent: 06 February 2008 18:54 To: 'FX.php Discussion List' Subject: [FX.php List] Where are my value lists...? Hi all, I've never used values lists previous that were actually defined as a list, I've always stored then in a table, and used FX to get the data directly... I'm currently working on someone else's database, and they have a number of valuelists defined in the database. The preference is to use them 'as is', however the valuelists component of the returned array is empty... what am I missing...? Thanks Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080206/e7f1d7d5/attachment-0001.html From jsfmp at earthlink.net Wed Feb 6 12:09:11 2008 From: jsfmp at earthlink.net (Joel Shapiro) Date: Wed Feb 6 12:09:18 2008 Subject: [FX.php List] Where are my value lists...? In-Reply-To: <30AC98C10DC7485AA6B95AF87663E5FA@matatirosolutions.co.uk> References: <93C66FFB8EDE4E18A92F05A05B2C14D9@matatirosolutions.co.uk> <30AC98C10DC7485AA6B95AF87663E5FA@matatirosolutions.co.uk> Message-ID: <33D82ECE-C544-443B-BBCF-3A27D2FAF053@earthlink.net> Hi Steve Yep, FMView() is necessary to pull value lists. From FXDataFormat.pdf: ___$ReturnedData['valueLists']___________________ print_r($ReturnedData['valueLists']); print_r($ReturnedData['valueLists']['myValueList']); echo($ReturnedData['valueLists']['myValueList'][0]); When an FMView() action is called, any value lists on the layout specified will be returned in this element of the returned data array. Pleas