Ikadon

In IPB Hooks, the dev doesn't need to know the last subclass, in fact needn't care, IPB handles it internally, and the user has full control of the execution order(which class extends which basically).

Simplistic example, but the difference in a nutshell.

In Laravel: http://four.laravel.com/docs/ioc

Other frameworks have other methods to achieve that. It's really nothing special anymore.

Regarding the rest of the answers:

First of, Charles. Yes, I still intend to leave, but I was asked some questions and wanted to be polite.

For the rest:

The development of these frameworks and composer is by far faster than anything that IPS has developed in the last couple of years.

You chose another way, I asked why, I got my answers, tried to discuss this but you still seem to have your reasons and I'm fine with that.

It's not like I'm crying because of your decision, it's just that I won't be able to use IPS-Software then because I wannt to put my work into the whole PHP-Community and not just one commercial software.

I'm glad you all (even those who have no idea of programming) had a great laugh and a new concept of an enemy for a few hours.

@Marcher: I'm sorry, this really is my last answer to you. The decision has been made, I see the reasons for it, can't with them and that's why I'll leave again. Enjoy your products and may IPS not fail to produce what you're searching for.

how many times? 'hooks' in any other framework means one and done that I have seen, extending a class once is not framework, it is native PHP.

"How many times"? Wow. I'm sorry I was even talking (and answering your questions) to you anymore, my glorious, superiour human. I've talked about hooks as you have, but as far as I see it you've worked with Laravel 4 and YII and Symfony 2 much longer than I did and thus have a far better understanding of all these frameworks than I do.

In a world of multiple programmers making applications and hooks independently for consumption, it is not that one can 'hook', it is that one can 'hook' and be certain anyone else 'hook'ing can 'hook' in after you at the same spot.

Also... what Is this about package dependencies? load *everything* for my app, even if I don't *need* or *use* it at x view? Wasteful IMO.... at least as a single config file unable to be handled at run-time.

That's why packages try to be as small as possible. But yes, you're loading all the stuff that belongs to that package. If that is wasteful to you, that may well be your opinion. I'd rather "waste" some disk-space than my time in reinventing half of an application of thrice the size of IP.Board Which can be dozens of hours someone has to pay for.

This was my very last post here, I don't feel the need to discuss in a tone like that.

re-read friend, a 'stock' file is any modders stock, a 'stock' file is part of an app, this has to do with not having to edit the app x person made to do x to add some customized feature, not directly to do with modifying the 'core' of the suite. any framework is only as good as how extensible it is, and how extensible what is built atop it is with minimal to no effort, and nothing is ideal for every situation Out Of Box.

I'm talking about the fact you can make an application, and I can modify any functionality about it, without touching your files, and then someone *else* could further modify a different functionality, or the same for that matter(the chaining I speak of)... again, tell me what does that?

Class extension itself is nothing new, but what IPS has with hooks is unique, and it does take a modder to actually appreciate that we can modify not only the core, but basically every app installed at need to meet the client's needs perfectly with minimal effort, versus 're-inventing the wheel' literally where an app is simply missing x vital function, but you do not actually have the ability to add it to the source as it is not your app, upgrade would boink any file edits and tis crude to need to anyway.

It would depend on how the guy programmed his app, wouldn't it? I mean if he just made it to be spaghetticode in one file I'd sure have to edit his code to add functionality, but this depends on the app itself.

Have a look at: https://packagist.org/

All these, and more, are available out of the box to your composer-projects. You just add a few lines to a composer.json-file and composer does the rest for you.

The Hooks I know from IP-Products are great but certainly not unique. Just have a look at modern frameworks.

I never had to change the code I used from packagist, but I did extend it (without any hassle)

Why would I spend my precious time to work with an application backed by one company if I can work with composer that intertwines with major frameworks such as Laravel, YII or Symfony 2.

Hell even CI had hooks years back.

edit: It seems like some of you feel attacked by my opinion. Well, this wasn't my intention and I'm sorry. It's just that once I really liked IPB and I got a little excited when the newsletter reached me.

But now I simply don't wanna support twenty frameworks anymore. These times have passed (luckily) so IPS-Products are not an alternative anymore, currently.

I just love to be able to share my code without the need to adapt it to five different frameworks and others are glad as well, because they spend less time porting applications that were made for Framework A to Framework B. It's also great to be able to use the efforts others have already taken without much of a hassle.

To me it's just a waste of time to develop the same stuff over and over again for different frameworks. I wouldn't mind if IPS would use their own framework if it was composer-ready and thus easily extendable by all applications. But I guess this could lead to more support-requests on your side and less control of the people. Now you need to use a bridge to integrate differend software with IP.B. Then you could simply add IP.Board to, let's say, Drupal 8.

So basically people who's needs are fulfilled with D8 and IP.Board wouldn't think about buying IP.Content and all the other products.

In my eyes composer is the bright future of PHP. Something Ruby (on Rails) has since eons. This development brought me back to this language.

Anyways, so this was it from my side. Have a nice day, enjoy your products and farewell.

I have never ever had to change a core-file, neither of IPS-software nor of Laravel or YII-framework.

Why should I? This would be bad frameworks where one is forced to change the core. The maintainability and updatability would be lost. That's insane.

Have a closer look at Laravel (especially Laravel 4, which is in beta currently) and shoot me a message if you feel the need to edit a core-file. I would love to see a situation where you'd need to do that.

What you asked for: Any modern framework can do what you specified, that's what they were made for oO

Either that or I don't get the question. (Bear with me, english isn't my mothertongue)

edit: Even better, have a look at composer and tell me again why you would need to hack core-files. That would lead the whole concept of a dependency manager ad absurdum.

The fact that any company can go bankrupt is not relevant. The same could be said of just about anything. "Oh I shouldn't buy X because the company making it COULD go bankrupt" is not a very fun way to live.

It's the same as saying "Oh, I won't use a framework because development and support could stop." (There are frameworks out there that are developed by professionals, as part of their fulltime job)

Well, I asked a question, I got an answer, I disagree... I haven't used IPS-products in years and I'm glad all the support requests I got stopped.

Now that I left the newsletter-system I won't bother you anymore.

Have a nice day!