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

[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
>>>
>
> <speed_comparison.php>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080201/d0dbe207/attachment-0001.html