Thoughts on how to abandon the proprietary framework for a larger open source project

Recently, we have been traveling a lot around our office to abandon the proprietary structure developed here a couple of years ago and move on to something larger and support the community.

Our current solution was designed to include only what we need, and it is very flexible, flexible, I mean that it is free, and the developers who built sites with it over the years are exempt from this, therefore many sites that we manage and which were built, and not any standards at all. Here in the office, I use the structure a bit, but prefer to use other tools. Over the years, I have used many PHP frameworks from Code Igniter to CakePHP and have been a big fan of the Zend Framework for all of my personal projects, which is why I am very biased and that is why I ask you to consult with people who may be able to give me a more objective opinion. In the office, a lot of work was done within our framework, so I can understandwhy some people may not dare to abandon it, but as I see it:

  • Currently, we do not spend much time maintaining the current database and checking for errors, we correct them when we find them. What should we do
  • Any work done to improve our structure is directly placed in our service column.
  • We have an application built on the basis of our infrastructure, which is based on a subscription and closed source information that we sell, and I feel that it could be better if it were built at a higher level using a popular environment based on a community that will require or encourage these things.

, ?, , , . , , - , - , , , , .

, , :

  • PHP , ​​ , .
  • , .
  • exisitng,
  • , , , , .
  • , , .

, :

  • , ,
  • , , .
  • , , , , , , . .

, , , , , , - .

+3
5

. Perl, , , , . - , , , . , , - , .

Perl Ruby, , , - , . , Catalyst. , - ( DBI Mason) . Ruby on Rails .

, PHP, , , , , . Googling , PHP , , , , , .

, , .

+1

, - .:) , , - .

+2

, . . . : , :

* , php, ( : , , , ).

* /, ? ( : , , , ).

* ? .

, , , , 2 1 . , , , (:-)), - ; -)

0

Zend Framework, .

, , ZF.

, , 4-5 , ( ).

, , , . .

0

.

-, , :

,

:

,

, , :

,

" ", .

, , , , , . , , ..

, , , ?

, , .

, , . , " , ", " ", .

It is always better to go through the system in stages, so that the whole child, bath, soap, pool and towels come out of the window to go back and repeat the same thing.

Everyone wants to rewrite the code, I want to do it. Our infrastructure needs to get around here. But then we go “yes, but ...” and what do we get in the end? N Months of effort to return to where we are now. It does not do much in a world where time is on the market.

0
source

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1724558/


All Articles