[FX.php List] FMP PHP or FX.php...??

[Bob Patin]

This is something I have to consider now for each new client, and for  
me it has come down to several considerations.

1. In my company's case, with multiple FMS 8 and 9 servers, I have a  
choice of machines, so I generally try to spread the load over the  
machines; at present the FMS 9 machine has the most empty space.

2. If the client has a preference, I naturally use the interface they  
request.

3. I find the time required for either the API for FX to be the same;  
most of the work on many web apps is involved with ancillary  
programming, like email, complex web-based reports, database design,  
so I find that to do a "create record" page in the API takes  
approximately the same amount of time as it does to do the same  
function in FX.php.

Not to start any debates, but at Devcon I was left with the belief  
that, if I were to be prepared for whatever new features FMI might  
roll out (web-related), I would want to know my way around the FM API.  
For that reason I learned it, have been using it, and now do projects  
with both. My favorite? Impossible to say, although I've been using  
FX.php so much longer that I generally lean in its direction.

Bob Patin
Longterm Solutions
bob at 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 at 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 Jan 31, 2008, at 7:27 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 at mail.iviking.org
>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
>
>
> -|
>
> _______________________________________________
> FX.php_List mailing list
> FX.php_List at 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/20080131/b8f548e6/attachment-0001.html