FuelPHP Forums

ssk

I've noticed that majority of web hosts still use php 5.2.
I'm refactoring my app from CI like to fuelphp and when I tried to test it online I saw that anonymous function from index.php on line 9 doesn't work, later I saw that it's because of php version of course. Not to mention namespaces and other php 5.3 features. I currently don't have any php 5.3 enabled hosting accounts so my app will still reside on localhost for some time or I'll have to use some 5.2 compatible framework.
I don't like CI's license where you need to document every change in code. Fuelphp is really better (not only because of the license), major downside is rare occurence of 5.3 enabled web hosts. Edit: here's a related post: http://fuelphp.com/blog/archive/2010/11

Jelmer Schreuder

PHP 5.2 has been declared end of life by the PHP folks. We're building a new framework and don't want to be held back by old PHP versions and (as we're new) we're not held back by legacy support, this gives us a clean slate to achieve awesome stuff. The webhosts should and probably will catch up, but because Joomla and some other major software (both in users & how much they suck) have been slow (I mean lazy) to adopt 5.3 some webhosts who did upgrade when it was time were burned when many of their user complained their software didn't support 5.3 yet.

Loic Sharma

Let's not forget that PHP 5.3 was released nearly a year ago. If your hoster hasn't updated yet, I would sincerely recommend finding a new one.

ssk

Can you recommend some hosts that support php 5.3?

Jelmer Schreuder

Depends on where you live for latency concerns.

ssk

Regardless of location if you're aware of any (host)
Btw I'm SE Europe, I'll need the host for testing purposes at first.

Kurt

Take a look at WebFaction.com - their newer servers come with PHP 5.2 and PHP 5.3. Edit: The servers are located in Texas at ThePlanet, but I'm in central Europe and the connection feels tolerably fast. You'll get SSH access and the ability to build practically anything you want on your Webfaction account - it's almost like a mini VPS.

Jeremy Buff

Personally, I'm a huge fan of Media Temple. I would highly suggest checking them out. They are rock solid and provide you with a great amount of control. They've very quick to update to the latest technologies and always provide great customer support when I need them.

I don't like their AUP.

Dwight

I'm about to try http://servergrove.com/, who offer PHP5.2 and 5.3 hosting. I'll let you know how they go. Their plans seem quite reasonable but it's always hard to tell how it will all perform until you're up and running.

Brian Link

You can always set up your own server too. Linode and slicehost have servers starting at $20 and aws and rackspace have decent priced cloud servers too. If you are launching a production site right away.. it may not be the best idea for security reasons .. but for a personal site or something a little ways off it really pays to have some rudimentary linux/lamp know-how

Brian Link wrote on Saturday 7th of May 2011:

If you are launching a production site right away.. it may not be the best idea for security reasons .. but for a personal site or something a little ways off it really pays to have some rudimentary linux/lamp know-how

But shared hosting is absolutely horrible, never run a production (or actually, ANY) site off a shared hosting account(!). Also, the real difference between a managed server and an unmanaged server is that when you buy a managed package they'll restart Apache HTTPD or MySQL for you when it fails. You can't really pass on liability because they'll always persist that nothing is wrong on their end. Running a VPS or dedicated server isn't hard, if you can't let someone run the server(s) for you then man up and DIY. Here are some alternatives to the aforementioned hosts: * ByteMark
* Dedico
* Linode
* UKDedicated The biggest threat in my experience is any PHP script which allows for uploads. That and mod_php5.

Kurt

Speaking of hosting - has anyone taken a look at PHP Fog (http://phpfog.com/)? It's supposed to be like Heroku for PHP - scaleable, with the possibility to add as many resources you need, as you need them. I received a beta invitation yesterday and am considering running some production apps there.

They seem to use the word "cloud" to look hip, instead of actually offering cloud services. Look at their blog, it says they're running on EC2. The use of "git push" for deployment is novel, they got it from Heroku. It's a matter of personal preference, I'd rather have root on a couple of redundant dedicated servers (managed with puppet, deployed with fabric). But if you want your host to be buzzword-compliant, go right ahead. Another famous cloud service is Google App Engine, for Python and Java.

Brian Link

I totally agree with you * .. just saying that someone probably shouldn't be launching a client's production site as their first foray into LAMP. Experiment a little, learn about start-up scripts, properly setting up users/permissions, firewalls, iptables, etc. Then you'll never go back to a hosted site ever again...

FuelPHP Forums

Ask your question about FuelPHP in the appropriate forum, or help others by answering their questions.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion