Build Your Own Database-Driven Website

Chris Beasley writes "I have a PHP book that's 567 pages long. I have two SQL books: one has 377 pages; the other has 719. Yet I consider 295-page 'Build Your Own Database Driven Website using PHP & MySQL' by Kevin Yank more valuable than any of these books. Why? Because, while I may find only a quarter or, at best, half of these books useful on a regular basis, all 295 pages of Yank's new release are of value to me on a daily basis." Build Your Own Database-Driven Website Using PHP & MySQL, 2nd Ed author Kevin Yank pages 295 publisher SitePoint rating 5/5 reviewer Chris Beasley ISBN 0957921802 summary A tutorial-style book for beginning PHP/MySQL Programmers

Unlike the arbitrary structure exemplified by so many programmers' references, Build Your Own Database Driven Website using PHP & MySQL is written more like an instruction manual, with chapters arranged in the order in which you should use them.

The first chapter explains the installation of PHP and MySQL; the next two cover usage basics. In Chapter 4 you're already pulling information from your database and publishing it on the Web. Chapters 5-10 refine what you've already accomplished, and delve into advanced topics in both PHP and MySQL.

If you're familiar with Yank's original tutorial, on which he based this book, your familiarity will end with the closing pages of Chapter 10. Chapter 11 addresses the storage of binary data in MySQL, a topic that was of great interest to me personally as I'd never done it before. In keeping with the rest of the book, Chapter 11 is a step-by-step guide, and explains the storage of binary data in a practical, down-to-earth manner that inspires you to give the book's teachings a try. Already I'm searching for an excuse to build a system, just to experiment with what I've learned. Chapter 12 covers cookies and sessions in PHP. The usage of cookies and sessions is essential to any online authentication or shopping cart system, and this topic makes a great final chapter that complements the book's other lessons.

This book makes good on its promise to teach you everything you need to know to build a database driven Website, but fortunately for us the author decided to throw in a few extras -- these take the form of four reference appendices. Appendix A covers MySQL syntax, which, while covered throughout the book, is easily referenced through this well-organized appendix. Appendix B explains MySQL functions, while Appendix C covers MySQL datatypes in considerable detail, so much so that I found this information easier to use than the official MySQL online reference. Finally, Appendix D covers the PHP functions that are used with MySQL.

If you progress in your programming skills you'll eventually need to buy a complete programmer's reference for PHP, although you probably won't need to buy an SQL reference unless you start using a more robust database solution than MySQL. However, if you want to build your first database-driven website, or even if you have built one before but want a practical reference, I can't recommend this book highly enough. Build Your Own Database Driven Website Using PHP & MySQL will guide you step by step through the development process -- who could ask for more?

You can purchase Build Your Own Database-Driven Website Using PHP & MySQL, 2nd Ed from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

This Book Changed My Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Before I read it I was successful and happy.

Now I'm a tired bitter old man.

Damn this book
Damn this book to hell

Who wouldn't?

[eenglish_ca]

Who wouldn't build their own database website. Imagine slogging through hundreds of pages of fixed html. Does anyone know of sites like these other than personal pages put up by newbies? All of my sites are at least dynamic using php.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[ozbon]

In fairness, sometimes it depends on whether your hosting service bungs in PHP etc. free, or at extra charge. It's all part of the pros and cons when it comes to dealing with hosting services.

Personally, I prefer the ones that do throw in mySQL/PHP/etc. in with the deal - but there's a lot out there that dont, EasySpace being one of them. Yeah, I used them for a while, but now I don't - but they still charge through the nose for mySQL and PHP stuff, as well as most other things.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[K.]

Preprocessing pages and serving static html is one way of coping with high CPU loads incurred by having a popular dynamic site. So as in everything, the best path is the middle path. Or so my teacher Steven Seagal tells me.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Spudley]

You're probably right. Of course, it does involve learning a bit of code, and there are plenty of people who aren't comfortable with that.

And then there are those who have small sites with only a couple of pages that don't need to change very often. Not much call for PHP on those.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[jest3r]

when you actually start getting alot of traffic it is sometimes best to use static pages for as much content as possible .. of course these static pages are generated from information stored in a database ..

opening a database connection for every visitor on every page is suicide if you only have a single server .. and your site is featured on slashdot ..

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Jellybob]

They charge through the nose for everything... I was using them for a couple of years, first to host my website, and then when I moved to a static IP, to do DNS for me for a while until I was comfortable I could do it from here.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Carik]

Why would anyone NEED their personal site (ie, here's who I am, here are links to my friends pages, etc) to be dynamically generated? For that matter, why should a page be written to be dynamic if it only changes, say, every 6-8 months? I've seen a lot of people build their sites using php/flash/perl/java/etc when it could have been done more easily and just as effectively with plain html.

I'll grant you, though, that for a business page, or something that updates on a daily/weekly basis, static html is pretty stupid.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

They charge through the nose for everything...

I don't know how massive of a site you run, but check these folks out. I've been with them a few years now, and have been nothing but happy. YMMV, of course.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[jandrese]

It all depends on what you're doing. Most business pages (brochurepages) are actually quite static and would not need much automation.

On a counterpoint, some homepages have dynamic content of some sort that you just can't do with static HTML. It's all a matter of what you're doing, not who you're doing it for.

Also, some people put up private pages as a way of teaching themselves the ins and outs of running webpages. Those pages can quickly include all sorts of bells and whisles including dynamic content, flash, etc. Additionally, those sights can look good on a Resume since it shows the person has enough interest in the technology to play with it outside of the workplace.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[ncc74656]

Who wouldn't build their own database website. Imagine slogging through hundreds of pages of fixed html. Does anyone know of sites like these other than personal pages put up by newbies? All of my sites are at least dynamic using php.

It depends on what type of content you're putting up. I wanted consistent navigation from page to page and easier maintainability; server-parsed HTML is sufficient for that task. It also allows me to serve up either proper HTML and CSS for browsers that can handle it or broken, non-standard HTML for crappy non-standards-compliant browsers. While I use MySQL for logging server activity (when I dumped access_log into the database, the database was smaller than the text file that created it), the only "content" I've ever served up from it was statistics of how many tens of thousands of times infected IIS machines had tried to pass their bugs on to my server (done with server-parsed HTML and a shell script with the query). For mostly-static content on a small to medium website, is there any reason (other than "because I can") for shoving every website into a database?

All of my sites are at least dynamic using php.

Such as this one, which took forever to load because the images appear to have not been optimized? Looks like invalid HTML with a big table in it.

(Why do I get the sneaking suspicion I've just been trolled?)

Re:Who wouldn't?

[rreyelts]

opening a database connection for every visitor on every page is suicide

Rather, just about every serious web application requires database access, and yet they don't commit suicide. It's called connection pooling, and it is a standard feature on pretty much any application server nowadays.

I imagine most Slashdotted sites die from network starvation long before their machines come to a grinding halt.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[NineNine]

I don't know how massive of a site you run, but check these folks out. [linuxwebhost.com] I've been with them a few years now, and have been nothing but happy. YMMV, of course.

They're insanely expensive. There's no reason to pay a dime more than $1/gig of transfer these days. If you shop, you can get as low as $0.50/gig. These guys are several dollars a gig.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[L7_]

Its nice when you can give access to write some of those html files to your 'friends' without giving them FTP access to your server.

Dynamic content with web-based multi-user editing is why I use php/sql on my somewhat smallish site.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[jub]

Actually, there is - i've used PHP for even tiny (10-page) sites, just for basic includes for header/footers and navigation.

It's way faster to bang out a quick site when you don't have to go back through files to check if that one link got updated. and a lot easier to add a page or two without even a global s/r.

mmmm... centralized navigation... gaaar...

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]. Does anyone know of sites like these other than personal pages put up by newbies?[/quote]

Every club site at Southampton University?

Re:Who wouldn't?

[bfree]

Could you please give some examples of hosting companies that charge $1/gig or less? I have looked at lots of hosting companies (for various projects) and have always ended up deciding that the bottom line is maybe $3/gig. The only exception is host2own.com who offer 1Mbs for $100, 10Mbs for $400 or 100Mbs for $3300! It's hardly equivalent though as they don't simply charge you for bandwidth used but charge you for the connection (though they at least used to give you the bandwidth at the 95th percentile so you can overflow it).

Re:Who wouldn't?

[markv242]

"opening a database connection for every visitor on every page is suicide if you only have a single server .. and your site is featured on slashdot .."

Um, no.

Real database connection pools (say, JDBC) running through a real application server (say, Resin) instead of a compiled-into-Apache-interpreter (PHP), accessing a robust database (Oracle) can and will run at an extremely high speed even when heavily loaded via Slashdot, etc.

All of these "create your own database-driven site!" beginner books are really nothing more than terrible instructions about how to build half-assed applications that don't scale worth a damn. It's because of these "learn PHP and MySQL in 30 days!" pseudo-manuals that we even have the slashdot effect. If web application programmers were to take the time to learn real enterprise-level application coding, you wouldn't see absolutely false statements like "opening a database connection for every visitor on every page is suicide".

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so pompous... and wrong! The slashdot effect is not simply poor programming. I think lack of bandwidth is often the problem. Also, many many sites that experience the slashdot effect were not designed to withstand such an onslaught-- nor should that have been expected to do so. That simply was not the target market for the site.

Also you want programmers to ONLY use very very expensive tools and databases? I use whatever makes sense for the client. I've done things with expense Oracle installations and high-end tools and I've done things with php and mysql. Guess what-- a lot of folks can't spend 100,000 on a database! Some folks have much smaller budgets and yet are able to get applications that do the job, do it well and scale very well in respect to what their requirements are! If that's "half a**ed" I am proud to be responsible for them!

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Junks Jerzey]

Who wouldn't build their own database website. Imagine slogging through hundreds of pages of fixed html. Does anyone know of sites like these other than personal pages put up by newbies? All of my sites are at least dynamic using php.

You make things as flexible and dynamic as possible on your (the webmaster's) end, then you process everything into static pages. This moves all of the heavy-lifting offline. This will cover most sites.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[LetterJ]

I'm actually about 80% done with a barebones CMS that is aimed at these small sites instead of those who want "portals". Content is stored in the database, but is only pulled live from there when the cache time expires. Otherwise, PHP just passes the cached file through. When a user is logged in, they can use the IE WYSIWYG editor to change any piece of content they want. The layouts are HTML with the only PHP being simple displaycontent() functions.

The goal is that you take what are normally done in HTML and, while still maintaining speed by caching, make them easy to maintain.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Shemp]

www.careerlink.com

About 95% static, gets about 6 million hits a week.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[zaxus]

Of course, convincing Mom and Pop to license Oracle for their recipe website might be a little difficult....

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, this is just a moronic post. The idea with PHP & MySQL is to have a robust, free, easy to use/program/host solution.

That fills a real need and niche.

If the internet were only comprised of sites running an Oracle database ... it would be a small, cold corperate world.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[eyeye]

What about when you add a page and you want to add it to the navigation, do you go through every static HTML page adding it?
Or do you use frames you dirty person, yuk ;-)

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

You _badly_ need some more lenses for your camera, or perhaps you need a camera that can accept lenses to begin with. Most of your pictures just plain suck because the subject it taking about 1% of the frame.

Don't mean to be rude but you never improve unless you're given honest criticism.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could even use postgres! Mysql just plain sucks.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

6 million hits a week? I'll call bullspit on that.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fack up. Frames rule.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Jerrry]

Such as this one [windsurf.dyns.cx], which took forever to load because the images appear to have not been optimized? Looks like invalid HTML [w3.org] with a big table in it.

Not to mention the lousy, uninspired photography.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[baka_boy]

And yet, there's good old-fashioned PostgreSQL, the original Timex of open source database servers...it'll take a lickin', and keep on tickin'!

Seriously, though, the high-load performance of pgsql still impresses me; for any application where I don't need the replication or hot-backup features of Oracle, I'd hold up a sturdy Postgres-backed (and mod_{perl,python,ruby}-powered) website against the dreaded /. effect any day.

When clients ask me why they should use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, I tell them it's the "baby Oracle" to match MySQL's "baby MS SQL Server".

Re:Who wouldn't?

[KewlPC]

OC12Host

They're cheap (dunno 'bout $1/gig, but you're paying for more than just the bandwidth), the service is pretty good (though, I must admit, I've never had to deal with their customer service department, so I have no idea how good that is; on the other hand, the fact that I've never needed to deal with their customer service department says a lot), and the only difference between the cheapest and the most expensive account types are how many gigs per month you get, how much disk space, etc. (all accounts get the same services: Perl, PHP, MySQL, subdomains, SSH access, FTP access, etc.).

I've been using them for almost a year and haven't had any problems, although my site is fairly small and pretty low-traffic.

If you want to have your own server, try SA Net Hosting. Never used 'em, but they seem decent enough, and you'd be supporting Something Awful, which is a damn funny site (although, lately their articles haven't been so good).

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Jellybob]

I'm good now, I charge other people slightly less through the nose for the same sort of thing ;)

Jon

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

People hosting static sites.

My site is mainly a tutorial on DOS game programming - not exactly a quickly changing topic. Static html is all it needs and that is what it is.<p>
Anyone hosting a small "free" site that comes with their ISP account. These free accounts generally don't support anything except static pages.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[KewlPC]

Your server's CPU load for that site would be a lot less if you just used SSI for the headers, footers, and whatever else you needed. That's what I do for my site, and I'd be willing to bet that, given an equal number of hits and bandwidth usage, my CPU load would be less than yours.

For many sites that get /.'ed, it isn't that they run out of bandwidth, but that their CPU load burns up the processor because the webmaster thought it'd be fun to dynamically serve up their image gallery, even though static HTML with SSI (and a Perl or PHP script to regenerate the static HTML pages when new images are uploaded) would have been enough.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[darkfrog]

Your site isn't w3c compliant either, better check yourself before you call out others.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fa lf ter.us%2F

Re:Who wouldn't?

[KewlPC]

The problem with this is that not many people can afford the expensive programs you mention.

What's more, there aren't any "Build Your Own Database-Driven Website With PHP and PostgreSQL" books, so you get idiots who can't even bother to write proper HTML suddenly thinking that they can do an enterprise-level site using nothing but PHP and MySQL. MySQL is such a half-assed database that it's embarrassing, yet unless you run your own server, that's pretty much what you're limited to because that's the only DB most hosting companies offer.

I love the way that once MySQL finally got support for transactions people were like, "Whoah! Transactions! Neato!" when every other SQL database already had them, even free ones like PostgreSQL.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[KewlPC]

MySQL is not robust. I mean, for crying out loud, it only got transactions fairly recently IIRC.

Umm, you've heard of PostgreSQL, right?

It's free, and is a much more complete SQL database than MySQL.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[KewlPC]

Umm, hello, you've heard of server-side includes, yes?

Just make your navigation thingy a seperate HTML file (but without the <head>, <body>, and <html> tags; basically, just the bare HTML for your navigation thing) and then include it on your main page via SSI. Very very simple.

Or, you could have a Perl/PHP backend that generates static HTML pages for you whenever new content is uploaded or existing content is changed, giving you the best of both worlds: dynamic content, but without the CPU overhead of having to run a Perl/PHP script for every pageview. This even gives less CPU overhead than small scripts that will pull a page from cache (and regenerate it if a certain amount of time has passed), since the scripts only run when the content is uploaded/changed, instead of for each and every page view.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[b!arg]

Yeah because every startup has the money to put tens of thousands of dollars into their hardware. Not to mention the many thousands of dollars to purchase the high end software. Oh yeah, how about the cost of programming these? What? We have to be able to maintain it all too? Hmm...how much will one or two knowledgeable and experienced admins cost? How many hits do we get per day, per hour, per minute? God help us if we ever want to change something. I'd like to see that ROI...actually...no...I wouldn't.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[ncc74656]

Your site isn't w3c compliant either, better check yourself before you call out others.

Last time I checked, it was...looks like their parser is screwing up on some offsite links that I've added since then. Some URLs had "&" within them. Replacing those occurrences with "&amp;" got their parser to stop complaining, and the links still work.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[jub]

Good point, but the vast majority of the web servers on the planet will never be /.'d, and have more cycles to spare than bandwidth.

Plus, you have to look at the big picture (apologies if this has been raised already) - it's a lot cheaper and more efficient to add an extra server and run a (typically database-driven) CMS than it is to get a lacky to update the site manually. Almost any monkey can be trained to update a site with a sufficiently simple CMS system, not everyone can be taught/trusted to manage SSI files.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[KewlPC]

it's a lot cheaper and more efficient to add an extra server and run a (typically database-driven) CMS than it is to get a lacky to update the site manually

There is no manual updating going on. You have to run a script to upload new content (say, for a blog), and it is that script which generates the static HTML pages from the dynamic content. You don't have to, say, have a cron job that runs a script every hour to regenerate your static HTML, or pay some junior sysadmin to run the script every once in a while, or anything like that. The script that allows your creative people to post their new content is also the script that generates the static HTML pages, and since that script only gets run when new content is posted, the static HTML only gets regenerated when new content is posted.

Basically, let's say you post some news to a site using news script Z. You run the script, it asks you for your password and all that, it asks you for the news you want to post, gives this news a little formatting (based on a template that you supplied when you first installed the script), and then sticks it at the top of some file ("news.txt" for the purposes of our discussion).

Now, understand that news.txt is not a complete HTML page. Rather, it just contains the HTML tags and text for your news. No <body> tags or anything like that. On your main page (index.html), you'd insert the following line into the HTML wherever you wanted the news to appear:

<!--#include virtual="news.txt" -->

and then rename index.html to index.shtml

And that's it. From now on, whenever you post news, your news script just sticks the new posts at the top of news.txt. Visitors to your site get a static HTML page (the server strips out the SSI tag and replaces it with the contents of news.txt, so the visitors don't even see the SSI tag).

Almost any monkey can be trained to update a site with a sufficiently simple CMS system, not everyone can be taught/trusted to manage SSI files.

Umm... the script generating the static HTML pages *is* the content management system . The CMS generates the static HTML pages *for you*, so there's no monkey required.

I hope you're not confusing SSI (Server-Side Includes, which are HTML tags that you insert in your page to have the server include the contents of a different page) with SSL (Secure Socket Layer). There are no SSI files to manage. A sample index.shtml (notice: .shtml, not .html) for Joe's Blog might be:

<html>
<head><title>Joe's Blog</title></head>
<body>
<center><img src="joe.jpg"><br>
<h1>Welcome to Joe's Blog!</h1></center>
<!--#include virtual="navigationbar.txt" -->
<!--#include virtual="blog.txt" -->
</body>
</html>

Even if you go crazy with server-side includes, the CPU load won't be nearly that of running even a small PHP script on every pageview.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[saider]

I think the point is that this targeted at do-it-yourself-ers, and not enterprise customers. Because commercial products are out of reach to most small businesses, they have to accept the limitations of what is available. Many web hosting companies have PHP and MySQL available, and this book is written to teach these customers how to use them. I think the real problem is when people assume that one solution can work well in any environment.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Tassach]

If you have a db connection pool, you aren't opening a database connection for every page hit -- you are reusing an existing connection. That's the whole point of connection pooling. Opening a new connection to the database is a comparatively expensive operation; having an existing connection service a query request is cheap. Of course, it sounds like you already know this.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[jub]

Nope, no confusion with SSL, i'm well aware of how SSI works, it's handy. There are plenty of people using BBEdit and AppleScript to manage websites too. I've written my own handy little filesystem-based cms that allows updates through a browser... good times. Different tools for different jobs.

I still say that for the vast majority of smallish low traffic sites, the cpu overhead is neglegable. The most expensive commodity of a website is bandwidth - you aren't getting charged by the cycle.

If you want to argue scalable sites, i think a database is still the better choice. You can find plenty of database-driven CMSs that spit out static pages (Moveable Type, Radio, Greymatter) if you're planning for big server load.

I'm running a little site (plus 3 others) on a 210 mHz PowerComputing Mac clone with linux/php/mysql, and i still haven't seen a load average over 20% yet, unless i'm compiling something.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[KewlPC]

I'm not saying that the backend can't be database-driven, just that you should make as much of what the user is seeing be static HTML as possible, like having that database backend generate the static HTML for you whenever new content is added (or existing content is changed).

Re:Who wouldn't?

[berzerke]

... Could you please give some examples of hosting companies that charge $1/gig or less?...

Sure, hostrocket . Their basic plan includes 20 gigs for $10/month (and right now they are running a special of 37 gigs for $10/month). They include php and 10 mysql db's (plus perl, ssh access [although it is not enabled by default], real unlimited pop3 email, and several other goodies at no additional cost.

I've been with them about a year now and have 2 other clients with them. Service is good. The only problem some of my clients have had is with AOL. AOL's new spam blocker seems to randomly block messages sent through hostrocket's servers. Sometimes the email gets through, sometimes it doesn't. However, this problem is not unique to hostrocket from what I know about AOL. BTW, AOL is doing the blocking, not hostrocket.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[berzerke]

This reads like a troll. In case it wasn't meant like that...

...MySQL is such a half-assed database that it's embarrassing...

Then why do major sites use it? From the Mysql website (quickest reference I could find): "Customers such as Yahoo! Finance, MP3.com, Motorola, NASA, Silicon Graphics, and Texas Instruments use the MySQL server in mission-critical applications." I believe /. uses it too.

Is MySQL the perfect solution for every database need? No. There is certainly a place in the world for other databases such as PostgreSQL. The best tool for the job sort of thing. But, MySQL is still a serious player.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[KewlPC]

Why do major sites still use MySQL? The answer is simple: momentum.

It's hyped as "The Open Source SQL Database Of Choice", when in reality it seems to me that only reason anybody uses it is because a)it seems like everyone else is, or b)it's the only thing available, or c)they aren't aware that there are other free SQL databases that have more features.

And yes, /. uses MySQL. They'd probably get more out of their servers if they used a different SQL database. Remember, though, that quote comes from MySQL's website, so of course they're going to play up any use of it. A better meterstick would be to find out what those sites thought of MySQL (how much it gets used, how it performs under the load, if they've tried any other DBs and what they thought of them under similar circumstances, etc.).

Head on over to this site, which will let you try various SQL statements on various SQL databases (MySQL being one of them). Try tutorial #2 on one of the systems running MySQL. Oh wait, you can't, MySQL doesn't support nested SELECTs (the site will warn you of this if you try it). Even Microsoft Access and Microsoft SQL Server support this basic feature (so does PostgreSQL).

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

> "opening a database connection for every visitor
> on every page is suicide if you only have a single
> server .. and your site is featured on slashdot

> Um, no.

Umm .. yes .. in the context of MySQL / PHP .. which was the context of the article ... MySQL does not scale well ... MySQL is the bottleneck if you have enough bandwidth ...

Re:Who wouldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

SELECT region, name, population FROM cia x
WHERE population >= ALL
(SELECT population FROM cia y
WHERE y.region=x.region)

I didn't bother to read most of the problem sets, but this embedded select can be solved with GROUP BY for which mysql supports.

PHP Too slow

[Anonymous Coward]

php is way to slow for big sites :*( unfortunately with out some state of the art cache.

Re:PHP Too slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here.

Re:PHP Too slow

[odyrithm]

php is way to slow for big sites :*( unfortunately with out some state of the art cache.

obviously you dont know about this: http://apc.communityconnect.com/about.html

Re:PHP Too slow

[Anonymous Coward]

The best PHP Cache I've tried is PHP Accelerator

Re:PHP Too slow

[MattRog]

The APC Cache is no longer being developed (check the last build date: August 25, 2001) and is not the best free compilation system.

The best free solution is the ionCube PHP Accelerator.

The Zend Performance Suite is far better, albeit commerical, though since it includes page (partial or whole page) and database query caching (in fact it can cache just about anything) to decrease the load in DB driven sites.

Chapter 16

[SpanishInquisition]

Avoiding the "Slahdot Effect"

Re:Chapter 16

[rbolkey]

Errata (2003-04-03)
Added Addendum: "Analysis of Chapter 16 Methods in the Real World: OMG!!!"

Re:Chapter 16

[missing000]

Still worse, sometimes I even respond to trolls like you.

Re:Chapter 16

[L7_]

thats 'evil bit' bad, not 'least bit' bad. thx

Re:Chapter 16

[Enzondio]

You can be intelligent without making every possible effort to be unlikeable.

You seem to be doing a great job at this.

Re:Chapter 16

[Doomrat]

There is a difference between being a complete fucking bastard at times and being a hopeless nerd.

I thought the build your own .com era was over...

[Anonymous Coward]

This book is so year 2000 man.

The thruth is...

[dfiguero]

that once you learn the basics of PHP and MySQL all books on SQL/MySQL and PHP just don't cut it. You would probably be better off with the online documentation from the respective websites and for those really though cases a PHP/MySQL Cookbook.

Re:The thruth is...

[gid]

I've run into the same thing. In fact, I've taken it one step further, I have NEVER felt a I needed a book to teach me PHP/MySQL, both projects have fantastic online documentation. If there's something that the PHP documentation doesn't tell me, chances are the user comments do. There hasn't been one feasible thing that I haven't been able to figure out with PHP or MySQL thru the online documentation.

The interesting thing is, I've recently have had to start learning Java / JSP / PL/SQL / Oracle. Documentation is a nightmare. There just doesn't seem to be one end all be all on stop shop for my Java documentation needs, there's about 20 relevant manuals that I need to sift through to find out one thing, and there's about 20 different ways to implement your site. Ok are we going to build our own tag libraries, conform to J2EE, use java beans, just do straight jsp, on what classes should we make and for what? What stuff should be stored in PL/SQL, etc etc etc. It's crazy.

PHP is a dream come true, ease of use wise. It may not be the fastest thing in the world since it's just a scripting language, but there's the Zend caching engine that can help quite a bit. There's just something to be said for reading PHP code from top to bottom and know exactly what's going on. And being able to pay a cheap PHP monkey to code your site for you, instead of paying an expensive Java/Oracle programmer with 10 years experience.

Re:The thruth is...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

I agree wholeheartedly. Oracle's docs suck. Their developer site sucks. ... this may not be a popular comparison, but Micrsoft's docs are way better. I can't tell you the number of sample java classes I've gotten from Oracle's site/docs which don't COMPILE due to a syntax error, let alone actually WORK.

Re:The thruth is...

[RabidMonkey]

I've been trying to learn PHP/MySQL for about a year now, using only online documentation. Heres the problem I have with that ...

I am not a programmer.

So when the documentation is telling me what something does, RARELY does it provide an example that makes sense. it's all documentation for programmers, outlining functions and classes and things I've never heard of ...

I want to learn PHP/MySQL because I want to be able to build tools to use as a sysadmin, and for fun, but most tutorials are made for people who are programmers, and familiar with programming techniques. Hell, it took me ages to realize that you have to assign the output of a function to a variable .. (duh, I know)

Books like these provide solid code examples that I have a hard time finding online, and do it in a manner that builds upon the previous lessons in a very easy manner.

I wish I was a programmer, but at best I'm a cut 'n paster from things I can find.

If I wasn't currently unemployed, I'd pick this book up in a second so I could tear apart some of the phpnuke stuff I've been playing with and understand bits of it better..

cheers.

Re:The thruth is...

[eatdave13]

If you're a sysadmin, you had better be a programmer, or you won't be a good sysadmin.

Re:The thruth is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope you would have a few reference manuals and not one "multiple tier distributed heterogeneous legacy-integrated clustered database container-managed-persistence applications for complete idiots" book.

What you are trying to do is complex. Your reference materials will be equally so. The fact that the J2EE model makes the complexity obvious should make you take pause when someone says it will be simple in PHP.

I wouldn't trust my recipe book to a "cheap monkey" of any language. Unfortunately, if you look at the current market, those Java/Oracle engineers are going pretty cheap. If you want cheaper than that, you might as well do your recruiting at McDonald's.

Re:The thruth is...

[wozster]

The interesting thing is, I've recently have had to start learning Java / JSP / PL/SQL / Oracle. Documentation is a nightmare. There just doesn't seem to be one end all be all on stop shop for my Java documentation needs, there's about 20 relevant manuals that I need to sift through to find out one thing, and there's about 20 different ways to implement your site. Ok are we going to build our own tag libraries, conform to J2EE, use java beans, just do straight jsp, on what classes should we make and for what? What stuff should be stored in PL/SQL, etc etc etc. It's crazy.

That's because they want you to attend the $3000+ per week training courses + pay for certifications + buy many books.

I strongly believe that the training business behind proprietary software generates much more income than the actual software itself.

Re:The thruth is...

[McCarrum]

Have to agree here. Once you cut your teeth, you need answers rather than explanations. It's a great book for a beginner to PHP/MySQL or to web programming in general, but that's it.

It's short and sharp, but it's effectivly a bunch of reformatted and better explained how-tos you can get for free from sitepoint (duh), devshed, and the rest.

EG: I was hoping the section on user administration and cookies actually explained how they worked, strategies on different techniques, etc. Nope. It tells you how to write a basic system and that's it. Expansion on a concept ... go elsewhere.

It's a cheap (as in price and as in production .. it's not a well crafted manual and will fall apart with decent usage), but it's an excellent starter manual. Otherwise, move on, grab the PHP Cookbook, and chat chatting in #php over in freenode.

How do I recommend it really .. well, If anyone wants to buy mine, contact me.

Re:The thruth is...

[RabidMonkey]

I'm a great sysadmin, I can shell script no problem ... but I digress.

They can be mutually exclusive .. I can admin a Netware server without EVER having to program a thing. windows too ... *nix stuff, you need shell scripting at the most. Why do you think you need to be a 'programmer' to be a good sysadmin?

Re:The thruth is...

[Tassach]

Hire a professional software engineer with lots of experience and you get a well-designed, documented, maintainable, and scalable system. Hire a cheap script monkey to slap some code together for you, and you get an unmaintainable pile of crap that's going to wind up costing you several times as much in the long run.

It may cost more up front to do it right the first time, but it's cheaper than having to live with a piece of crap while you pay someone to reimplement it for the third time. The skill, intelligence, and professionalism of the person building the software is VASTLY more important than the tools they use. You pay for experience because it's valuable.

Re:The thruth is...

[Anonymous Coward]

These books work well for me:
java developers almanac 1.4, volumes 1 and 2
java enterprise in a nutshell
xml pocket reference

and this one should be helpful, but I haven't used it:
oracle pl/sql pocket reference

all for only 78.40 at bookpool.com

Re:The thruth is...

[Erik Hollensbe]

I disagree.

Being a good sysadmin is making the most of your time. Part of being a good programmer is understanding the tenents of laziness, that is, never having to do the same thing twice. If only one good thing came out of Larry Wall, his comments on "Laziness, Patience, and Hubris" were probably it.

Sometimes, you have to write programs to streamline work. Often when I was doing system administration, I was writing expect scripts (basically TCL) and PERL, some C (only when I had to, though -- Perl normally does the job with less time).

If you embrace this, you will find that your work will be a lot less tiring. :)

Also, PHP is a "programming" language, but it's really not anything complex. If you're having trouble grasping some concepts -- there are a lot of sites out there that either provide static help, or forums with tons of people willing to help you understand.

And don't forget that the php.net site is full of examples with how to do a lot of things, and the comment system is great on their site. Normally not only do I find a function that I need, but a lot of stuff describing how to do it as well.

If other "open source languages" attacked learning this way, we'd have a lot more talented programmers out there.

a tad forgetful are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

all 295 pages of Yank's new release are of value to me on a daily basis.

Maybe you just need a better long term memory.

Re:a tad forgetful are we?

[Master Rux]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that caught that. It makes you wonder. If he needs the same step by step book everyday is he that forgetful or that much of a newbie? Maybe he just uses it everyday to show other people how to do it. Probably just a hyperbole.

Re:a tad forgetful are we?

[gorka]

What's really amazing is that he reads all 295 pages every day!

Re:a tad forgetful are we?

[bimmergeek]

Dammit! Somone beat me to this. I wish I were a better slashdotter. I'm not worthy. I suck.

Re:a tad forgetful are we?

[blowhole]

I find myself constantly checking online docs because it's tough remembering all the nuances of C/C++, Java, JavaScript, PHP, HTML, SQL, Perl, VB, etc.

Just to illustrate my point, how do you find out the upper bound of an array in each language that you've used?

Re:a tad forgetful are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. What he needs is a brushup course in English grammar.

What he meant to say is: I use something in this book every day. What he said instead is: I use each and every page each and every day. Hopefully, he programs better than he writes.

Re:a tad forgetful are we?

[reanjr]

C - (int)ArrayCounter; //requires incrementing
PHP - //dunno, I use C method
Java - //never cared
C# - Array.GetUpperBound(0);
VB.NET - Array.GetUpperBound(0)
VB - UBound(Array)
BASIC - UBound(Array) 'implementation dependent
Pascal - I don't even remember how to declare a variable so that doesn't count
bash - #ummm...

I don't think I did too bad.

sounds simliar

[drgroove]

to the PHP and MySQL Web Development book by Welling & Thomson, from SAMS.

Good to see more 'tutorial' style books coming out - its the real world examples that springboard a beginner's skill level w/ a new language.

I'd much prefer to see this type of tutorial book in the hands of a n00b than a straight-lexicon or syntax book w/o examples of actual apps you can build. Sounds like a good one, based on the review.

Re:sounds simliar

[eddy the lip]

Way, way, way off topic, but you didn't happen to live in Victoria, BC, did you? Your tag-line reminds me of someone I knew there some time ago...

Re:sounds simliar

[drgroove]

Way, way, way off topic, but you didn't happen to live in Victoria, BC, did you? Your tag-line reminds me of someone I knew there some time ago...

nope. chicago, born & bred. The tagline is a modification of something Maceo Parker (James Brown's sax player) says - "I play 2% jazz, 98% funky stuff". I'm a college-educated jazz bassist, so I find it amusing to mix the jazz/code thing.

anyhoo... :)

Re:sounds simliar

[eddy the lip]

ah...that would explain it. He was also a big Maceo Parker fan. Turned me on to funk, and a wicked custom espresso mix ;)

Enjoy Chicago...

Re:sounds simliar

[Tassach]

Good to see more 'tutorial' style books coming out - its the real world examples that springboard a beginner's skill level w/ a new language.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Books like this teach you one way of how to do it. They don't teach you why you should do it that way, how it works, or what the trade-offs are for different approaches. A good introductory book needs to tell you both the *how* and the *why*. Unfortunately, good introductory programming books are rarer than bug-free Microsoft Service Packs.

Database and web application security documents

[Anonymous Coward]

Tons of papers:
www.cgisecurity.com/lib

SQL injection, and Database security:
http://www.cgisecurity.com/sql.shtml

XML:
http://www.cgisecurity.com/xml.shtml

Java:
http://www.cgisecurity.com/java.shtml

Wow, great book review!

[Anonymous Coward]

A vague summary of the chapters with generalized praise. Thanks Slashdot!

oh the irony....

[xao gypsie]

leave it to open source (mySQL) to remove the bloat.....

xao

Re:oh the irony....

[wisdom_brewing]

open source isnt bloated? look at X, why does it still exist? its the qwerty story all over again, all its doing is becoming worse and worse year after year with more and more crap

Sounds good...

[Randolpho]

... but aren't there already a bunch of books that do this? I mean, wouldn't a more useful book be one about *designing* a database driven site? Stuff like content management, implementing full text search, session tracking, user logins, site organization and navigation, that sorta thing?

I mean, do we really need *another* book that tells you how to program in PHP and how to use MySQL?

Anyway, from the review, I suppose this would be a good replacement for those books. I just think what we need is something more.

Re:Sounds good...

[drgroove]

... but aren't there already a bunch of books that do this?

Yes, but having a choice of books is helpful to beginners; especially considering that not every author's writing style or code examples work for every budding developer out there. Choice is good. There is still plenty of room for the improvements you sighted, tho, but I don't think that lack of coverage on those concepts in this particular book denigrates its quality or usefulness.

Re:Sounds good...

[odyrithm]

it would be nicer if people would spend a day of there life to look at postgresql... now I was one of the MySQL fanatics that hated pg.. how foolish I was.. trust me, all this hype over MySQL is totaly unjustified, postgresql is a far far better rdbms. Dont believe me? take a day to look up its features, you wont regret it.

Re:Sounds good...

[mark_lybarger]

one feature of MySQL is that it "runs" on Win32 platform a little easier than pgsql, but i totally agree with the need for people to consider postgresql. with the use of adodb for php (database abstraction layer), use of pgsql is much easier.

Re:Sounds good...

[Anonymous Coward]

User Firebird and you have the functionality of PostgreSQL and the flawless ability to run on Windows or Linux like MySQL.

Re:Sounds good...

[Christianfreak]

Same thing goes for the language. I wish people could be bothered to learn something far more powerful and better designed like Perl (mod_perl for websites) or Python.

PHP may be easy but try to do a data structure more complex than an associative array. And references ha! one only wishes they had references. Grrrrr.

Re:Sounds good...

[Randolpho]

I agree wholeheartedly; I will stick to Zope or Twisted any day of the week (both Python based).

I don't know what it is about PHP that I dislike so much; perhaps it's the sucky perl-like syntax, or the lack of API packages (or rather, I should say the plethora of built-in functions), or the fact that so many PHP purists these days insist that you can't use PHP for templating any more (thus running contrary to the original purpose of the language) and that you have to print all your html with print statments inside a single <? ?> tag.

Re:Sounds good...

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason for using MySQL is that most low-cost hosting companies provide MySQL and PHP standard. If you're setting up your own box, you're free to use what you want - but if you want to take advantage of $5/mo. hosting you may not have a choice.

For building a business, you'd choose what's best. For a hobby-site (or other non-revenue site) you often use what you can get affordably.

Re:Sounds good...

[ceejayoz]

perhaps it's the sucky perl-like syntax

Perl-like? It's C-like, if anything, which makes it easy for someone who has experience in C or Java to pick up.

or rather, I should say the plethora of built-in functions

What's wrong with lots of built-in functions?

so many PHP purists these days insist that you can't use PHP for templating any more (thus running contrary to the original purpose of the language) and that you have to print all your html with print statments inside a single tag.

I've never come across a competent PHP developer who has said that. Hell, the official PHP site has Smarty, a template engine.

Come on... there are some valid gripes about PHP, no need to go make up some.

Re:Sounds good...

[Unordained]

win32? pdp11? unix? linux? doesn't matter -- firebird does it all. postgresql and firebird are quite similar, feature-wise, but their histories are quite different. check it out! (and yes, firebird/interbase -are- supported by php.) i just don't get the obsession with mysql, as if it were the -only- usable open-source database out there. btw, i might love postgres more if it didn't take more work to install than firebird. i mean ... firebird just -goes-. and that's on linux (production machine) or windows (test machine.)

Re:Sounds good...

[Christianfreak]

Perl-like? It's C-like, if anything, which makes it easy for someone who has experience in C or Java to pick up.

Perl is C-like in a lot of ways too. More so than PHP. So I think its fair to say PHP is Perl like, some kind of hacked version of Perl though.

What's wrong with lots of built-in functions?
They are hard to remember and they have names_that_are_entirely_too_long(). Both Python and Perl have ways to group functions together into proper namespaces, something that PHP really lacks. I don't care that their built in, I just want namespaces!

I've never come across a competent PHP developer who has said that.

Yes but there is an inherent lack of competent PHP developers, mainly because of books like this. Someone reads it and picks up it fairly easily without having to understand things like namespaces, proper security models, templating or anything else that would make code maintenence or reuse 10 times easier. Development is easy and fast until you start coding properly.

And finally about templating, PHP was designed to be embedded into HTML, an approach that is getting more and more backward. There are several attempts to hack templating into it but of all the one's I've tried they aren't near as powerful as templating in other languages. (not saying there aren't good ones, I've just yet to find them).

Re:Sounds good...

[Raffaello]

"Perl-like? It's C-like, if anything"

And what sort of syntax does Perl have, lisp-like?
Perl has C-like syntax, so Perl-like is the same as C-like (i.e., it's easier for a machine to read than a human, so it sucks).

For doesn't-really-suck syntax, one has to look at something like Dylan, or SmallTalk, IMHO.

Re:Sounds good...

[Webmonger]

Your wish is granted: PHP4 has references. And I'm actually working with structures more complicated than associative arrays ATM.

Re:Sounds good...

[L7_]

Disclaimer: I don't write php for a living, but I do write C/Perl.

People need a book that lets them understand what the hell is going on when they re-use someone else's code. Everything I've ever done for myself or others in php has basically been code-reuse. Download the phpnuke or postnuke scripts, configure it then edit the ones to fit some dynamic modules that you need specific on your site. I have never ran into anyone that has ever written a php/mySQL application from scratch, and why would you when there are plenty of code-bases out there that do 85% of the work for you.

This book is basically to understand poorly commented php code, so that the average php scripter can understand whats going on.

Re:Sounds good...

[odyrithm]

ey I agree there, I have that problem.. mysql is proberly perfectly suited to most web based stuff.. and is for the web based stuff I use.. but all my gtk apps use postgresql/pglib.

Re:Sounds good...

[Anonymous Coward]

> trust me, all this hype over MySQL is totaly unjustified, postgresql is a far far better rdbms.

Especially if you're running Windows.

Re:Sounds good...

[yancy]

it would be nicer if people would spend a day of there life to look at postgresql

It would be nicer if someone had named it differently. This may sound silly, but if you wanna appeal to noobs, it helps to have a meaningful/pronounceable name that people can remember how to spell (for Google purposes) without taking a stab in the dark.

"What the hell does postgre mean? That's weird, I'll check out MySQL."

Yancy

Re:Sounds good...

[Anonymous Coward]

the phantom fatty mod strikes again, well done you fat ginger muffin.

Re:Sounds good...

[benp_85]

yeah, i've thought that before. -ben-

Affiliate link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting an affiliate link makes the review so much more credible.

Re:Affiliate link?

[Jellybob]

It's added by /. ... or would you rather they didn't make any money to keep this site running?

Re:Affiliate link?

[Ron Harwood]

It's not the reviewer's link... it's slashdot's.

Imagine a business trying to make money of their content...

Re:Affiliate link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Chris Beasley is a notorious turd. He's been kicked out of dmoz.org zillions of times and keeps sneaking back in under alias while subjecting the server to dos attacks. He has also been known to try to steal traffic from webmasterworld.com. Now he's trying it on with slashdot. I have nothing but contempt for this person and his offerings, which carry authority only among the lowest ranks of web professionals.

Re:Affiliate link?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter anyway as B&N only have 1 copy of the book available.

All 295?

[ejaytee]

All 295 pages, every day? Wow... the only way this would be true for me is if I forgot how to count all the way up to 295 and had to make use of the page numbering.

Seriously, will somebody reset the hyperbole detector? Mine keeps going off.

Measurement of book length is meaningless

[MarvinMouse]

I have a PHP book that's 567 pages long. I have two SQL books: one has 377 pages; the other has 719. Yet I consider 295-page 'Build Your Own Database Driven Website using PHP & MySQL' by Kevin Yank more valuable than any of these books.

Just because a book is long, doesn't mean it's useful.

like the great quote

The Ten Commandments contain 297 words. The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words. The Lord's prayer has only 67. The story of creation in the Bible uses only 200 words. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 271 words. On the other hand, a recent Federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

I personally find, the bigger the book, the more difficult it is to navigate and the less useful it really becomes. Quick, short, to the point explanations are almost always better than long details drawn out explanations that I don't have the time or the desire to read.

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen Brother!

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[limekiller4]

E=MC^2

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[bleachboy]

"I never knew words could be so confusing," Milo said to Tock as he bent down to scratch the dog's ear.

"Only when you use a lot to say a little," answered Tock.

- Norton Juster, _The Phantom Tollbooth_

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[Ed Avis]

Philip and Alex covers the same topic (building a website with a database backend). It has a large number of pages which are not at all useful because they are colour photographs of Alex or of various parts of North America. And others are random sidetracks or rants against the stupidity of web designers or 'junkware'. But they are not wasted pages because they are entertaining to read or look at.

To avoid are books with a large number of pages which are neither useful nor entertaining - like most of the 500-page monsters you see in bookshops. ('Teach Yourself To Be A Dummy In 24 Hours' - Philip.)

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

like the great quote . . . blah blah blah XXX words

Take out all that biblical shit and you'd have a great quote.

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not 'a recent Federal directive' you American dumbfuck, it's 'the European Commission's regulation' on the sale of cabbage. Getting a little patriottic are we?

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I am from Canada, so federal works here as well.

and I believe it is also applicable in...
Mexico, Brazil, Britain, Japan...

the list goes on.

Don't assume Federal = American.

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[kalidasa]

I personally find, the bigger the book, the more difficult it is to navigate and the less useful it really becomes.

mega biblion, mega kakon - Kallimakhos, one of the librarians of the Library of Alexandria. The Greek is easy enough you can probably figure out what it means on your own without knowing Greek; kakos means "bad."

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[astroboy]

like the great quote

The Ten Commandments contain 297 words. The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words. The Lord's prayer has only 67. The story of creation in the Bible uses only 200 words. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 271 words. On the other hand, a recent Federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

Arg! Not this again. This is an urban legend.

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[MarvinMouse]

Hey!!! I was waiting for someone to post that snopes article. Where do you think I got the quote? ^_^

Actually, everything there is accurate, the only one that is really off is the price of cabbage one, but there are enough laws where this is legit that the quote still serves it's purpose.

It's good to know there are still some people doing their research though. ^_^

Re:Measurement of book length is meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

Demonstrating once again how obnoxious Europeans are. Have fun on your own durring the next world war some dumbass over there starts.

save your money

[larry bagina]

I looked through this book at barnes & noble a couple weeks ago. I'd recommend skipping it, although it may be useful for some newbies.

Basically, it's a tutorial (build a php/mysql website in 10 steps!). There are plenty of online resources (like devshed) that do tutorials like this all the time. (Note to slashdot editors: devshed spell checks submissions!). If you like to read on the john, this book might be for you. Chances are, you'd be better off to save your money for a mysql or php reference book.

Nice, timely review - the book is out of print

[Anonymous Coward]

I just looked at Barnes and Noble and found the book is no longer available!

You know, it might be useful if Slashdot book reviews were limited to books that are currently in print!

Re:Nice, timely review - the book is out of print

[Derek Pomery]

Amazon still thinks it is

Re:Nice, timely review - the book is out of print

[asklepius]

Not only does Amazon have it, but if you look, the publish date on this book is March 03, 2003 in paperback. Barnes and Noble lists a 2001 publish date and its hardcover. Sounds like an additional printing.

Re:Nice, timely review - the book is out of print

[Cy Guy]

Amazon still thinks it is

Actually, its a little more complicated than that. Amazon has the paper back edition (ISBN 0957921810), but they too are out of the hardback edition (ISBN 0957921802) which is the edition identified in the book's stats part of the review.

bn.com doesn't even acknowledge the paperback exists, let alone having it in stock - but if you dig you will find they do have a copy of the hardback available through an affiliate dealer. Amazon's affiliated sellers don't have any of the hardback available and in fact have a buyer waiting for copy to go up for sale.

Re:Nice, timely review - the book is out of print

[mav[LAG]]

You can get it from the source where they also make the first four chapters available as a free download. My copy should be arriving any day now...

Re:Nice, timely review - the book is out of print

[Fizyx]

Not true -- if you look at the website, it has just been re-released in a new version (which is what likely triggered the review).

I bought the first version when I was a newbie to the topic. I found it to be a good introduction, except that there was NO INDEX. That made it very difficult to use as a reference: so much so that, unless the second version has an index, I recommend you give it a pass. The on-line table of contents doesn't mention an index...

Re:Nice, timely review - the book is out of print

[mav[LAG]]

The on-line table of contents doesn't mention an index...

It has one. From the site page (right hand column):

• Fully updated for PHP 4.3.
  
• Installation instructions for MySQL & PHP running under Mac OS X.
  
• Complete index now provided.
  
• All content has been completely revisited and expanded throughout.
  
• New wider book size, higher quality fonts, and a funky new cover design.
  
• It even has a lay-flat spine so the book stays open on your desk.
  
  

Better Solutions?

[webword]

Forget PHP. Use Whitespace! If that is too hard, install FrontPage! The real l337 h4x0r solution.

This book should be good because...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's based on a very popular article series he did for sitepoint.com and other sites. I dl'd and printed out all of those articles that comprise the base of the current book and they are dog-eared and well worn. I especially like his tone througout the articles (nice sense of humor) and concise coding style well explained. I will 'browse' this book at Bordersss if they have it and if I see new stuff I will buy it.

Re:This book should be good because...

[Kolenkow]

I've also grown tired of that strange thing called "bookmark" and the "world wide web", so whenever I find something interesting on the web, I print it and put it in my bookshelf.
...

http://www.google.com/search?q=paperless+society

This book isn't available.

[sid crimson]

So why is this book reviewed? Not even available at BN.COM or amazon.com or bookpool.com.

-sid

Re:This book isn't available.

[NineNine]

Did you ever think abuot a LOCAL bookstore... you know, one that's NOT owned by giant international conglomerates? I just LOVE hearing from Open Source advocates who buy all of their Open Source books from an oligopy. It's so fucking ironic, I want to cry.

Re:This book isn't available.

[Cy Guy]

Did you ever think abuot a LOCAL bookstore

Well actually, most local bookstores that want to stay in business have stopped trying to beat Amazon and bn.com and decided to join them by offering used & hard to find books via their affiliated dealers programs.

Unfortunately, just one copy of the hardback version was (sold within the last few minutes while I was writing this post) available through bn's affilliate system, and none of either edition are available through Amazon's affiliates. Though the paper back version is available through Amazon.

If there are local stores out there that have the book available, they might want to consider selling the book through Amazon or bn.com. After all, listing (at least on Amazon) is free.

BTW NineNine, we miss you!

Re:This book isn't available.

[NineNine]

Damn it, find a local bookstore that has it or can get it! I have a great one that can order any book I want, and the price is good, and it's about as quick as one of these big nasty companies. If you'll spend months and months learning Linux, what's a few hours to find a good bookstore?

Re:This book isn't available.

[brettd]

The book is available in fact you can download the first 4 chapters for free and go from there: http://www.sitepoint.com/books/

Re:HOWTO-Build a DIY DB-driven site

[KDan]

Wrong. Install MySQL first and then install apache and mod_php together.

Daniel

A bit of advice...

[tdvaughan]

"...all 295 pages of Yank's new release are of value to me on a daily basis." While regular bowel movements are to be encouraged, you'll find toilet paper to be more cost-effective.

Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot should take this post's suggestion...

Web Database Applications with PHP & MySQL

[The-Perl-CD-Bookshel]

I develop 'AMP' solutions and IMHO this book, in addition to the PHP cookbook, are the best two books you can buy on the subject. You can really tackle most any problem with these two books and if you cant, there is always IRC or as a last resort the documentation :)

Re:Web Database Applications with PHP & MySQL

[Captain Large Face]

I thought it was known as LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP)? This is quite amusing when you realise that on a Windows based platform, it has the opportunity to be come WIMP (Windows 2000, IIS, MySQL, PHP). It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing.

Re:Web Database Applications with PHP & MySQL

[Erik Hollensbe]

WIMP also stands for "Windows, Icons, Menus, and Pointers".

Re:Web Database Applications with PHP & MySQL

[Captain Large Face]

Wow, you learn something new every day! Thanks!

Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[British]

It seems too many websites out there have mile-long URLs(including huge session ID strings) and other gizmos only to deliver the same static content over and over again.

What ever happened simply to static web pages that are nice and simple, and dish out the data without all that overhead?

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and what's the deal with all the freaking redirects and calling server processes to send a file to the client instead of just a plain old ftp:// or http:// url of the file??? Hell, even sourceforge is a pain in the ass to download files from (try it in Lynx, it sucks because you have to navigate through a bunch of redirects and crap).

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[ebyrob]

What ever happened simply to static web pages that are nice and simple, and dish out the data without all that overhead?

Or better yet a set of simple, concise data files and a batch method for converting it to static HTML after updates for display on the web. What's this internet coming to?

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[I am Jack's username]

Chapter 11 is a step-by-step guide [...] searching for an excuse to build a system

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[fractalus]

If you've got no content, your site doesn't need to be dynamic. A static blank page will do.

On a more serious note, it depends on what the site does. Having built a fair number of sites--both for myself and, as part of my job, for big companies--I can say there are pros and cons to driving your site from a database.

Databases are primarily useful when you have a consistent structure to your content and you need to be able to update that content easily. When I built this site it was done from a database, but I used a script to build all the pages one time; it's a static site, because the content doesn't get updated. I'm in the process of rebuilding the main site now, and it really will be dynamic, because I want to be able to update the database with new content and have it automatically appear on the site.

But more importantly, there are advantages from a fully dynamic site that you just can't do with static HTML. Any kind of interactivity, be it searching, multi-step forms, or even checking on financial systems like I built with this site. You can't reasonably do that kind of thing without connecting with a database.

Sounds like this book is a good starter guide for folks looking to learn how to build dynamic web sites. It gets you to the point where you're ready to deal with establishing sessions, and once you're there, then you can really get the ideas flowing... you have to tools to do what you want, instead of being limited by what you know.

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[ProfKyne]

Or better yet a set of simple, concise data files and a batch method for converting it to static HTML after updates for display on the web.

Sounds like you're talking about Bloxsom.

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[ebyrob]

Sounds like you're talking about Bloxsom [raelity.org].

I wasn't... but I will be next time!

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[telbij]

If you truly have static content, then of course you can just serve up generic pages. But I can tell you the number of Web sites that have changing content far outnumber the ones that are static (or at least they should if people would update their damn site already!).

Even if your pages are relatively static information, if you want to change the design for 100 pages, it becomes a real pain in the ass to manually go through and change them one by one. You can use SSI for a very small percentage of cases using a header and footer include, but something as simple as using a unique title on each page can increase the complexity and maintainability of such a solution VERY quickly.

On the other hand, you can use a flexible templating system for your static pages, and get all kinds of maintainability benefits. Throw in a halfway decent caching system and you can actually get decent performance AND easy maintenance.

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[Animats]

There are lots of good reasons for database driven web sites:

• Easier support for "124 people have accessed this site since January 1, 2000".
• Three words: "customized ad content".
• A new fortune every time!
• "Welcome back, (Your name here)".
• Different users, different prices.
• Kickbacks from database sales rep.
• Job security.

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[jeremyds]

That's fine and all if you have pages that just display data. However, if want to do anything interactive, like search an employee directory, then you'll need to use dynamic pages. A comprimise might be to cache the data instead of going through the overhead of hitting the database every page load. Of course, this would need to be balanced with the memory available on the server.

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[LetterJ]

Or automatically cache the results of those long query strings and update them at appropriate intervals automatically. Then, the site is "dynamic" when it helps, i.e. the editing end of things, and "static" when it helps there, i.e. speed in serving up pages.

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[belloc]

Apple.com's products pages are a perfect example of successful static pages, with short, rememberable URLs. Their support site dynamic, but the URLs are still short. When all you need is a simple brochure, static is often the way to go.

Belloc

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[TheShadow]

Well, if people weren't so damn opposed to Cookies, there wouldn't be a need for "mile-long URLs(including huge session ID strings)".

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[ssstraub]

If advertisers weren't so obsessed with tracking EVERY little thing you do on the web, there wouldn't be anyone opposed to cookies.

Blam them for ruining that one.

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and 123 of those hits were the author checking the site and the other one was her mother.

Re:Just how many sites need to be dynamic?

[TheShadow]

They can track you without cookies. So why all the fuss?

Amazon bad, BN good...

[teslatug]

The book is apparently not available at BN, so I checked Amazon, and they have it.

Re:Amazon bad, BN good...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you slid your referal number into that link. how much do you get for that?

Re:Amazon bad, BN good...

[Anonymous Coward]

The book is out of print, but BN does appear to have (as of 2:20pm April 3) one copy.

Even Powell's doesn't have any.

Damn...

[grub]

... I can't find the PDF on kazaa yet..

Go Kevin (Yank), not another Kevin!

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a couple of years ago when I started playing with both PHP and MySQL, I tumbled on a tutorial on webmonkeybase.com (defunct and now hosted on lycos I think) written by Kevin Yank. I was really a goor intro to PHP/MySQL, even covering the security aspect of managing a MySQL database. Then perhaps a year later the article was mentionned on MySQL Articles page (I looked but didn't find it anymore) I was happy to see that the tutorial I followed was good enough to make it to the MySQL web page.

And that was a couple of years ago. I can't imagine the experience he (Kevin Yank) must have acquired since then.

I will not buy his book, I speak french and am aleady equipped. But for anyone looking to buy a book covering both PHP and MySQL, without even reading it, I would suggest it.

Good luck Kevin! :^)

Re:Go Kevin (Yank), not another Kevin!

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not buy his book, I speak french...

well we know at least half your problem

Re:Go Kevin (Yank), not another Kevin!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mon problème c'est des trous d'cul d'amaricains comme toi qui s'prennent pour le nombril du monde.

Re:HOWTO-Build a DIY DB-driven site

[mark_lybarger]

my personal preferance would be Tomcat/JBoss/Apache/postgresql. there's a lot of benefit to taking advantage of product which implement standards and even more benefit when those products are open source free as in beer and free as in speach.

Which effect?

[Sleepy]

> Avoiding the "Slahdot Effect"

Were you refering to the Slashdot-caused bandwidth spike?
Or did you mean the "I can't spell" Slahdot effect?

Sorry... it's so unclear what you meant.. :-)

Yanks article on mysql.com's documentation section

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read Yank's article on mysql.com's docs section - found it excellent way to pole-vault learning curve...

like a "cookbook" book, but organized in a logical way that takes you from start to finish - not just a jumble of recipes, but rather a thread to follow from start through all normal road-blocks/issues you'd encounter with normal small sized projects - and how to solve them - stays focused...

I haven't bought the book yet though...

Crowley's wisdom

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, mixing the left hand and right hand paths is dangerous.

Re: slashdot effect

[Anonymous Coward]

I can name that tune in 5 notes, all P166 boxes:

1. Open BSD firewall (2 nics)
2. Squid inverted cache (2 nics)
3. webserver (apache-mod throttle)
4. MySql/Postgresql database
5. Fileserver

Profit!

Build your own database-driven web site...

[digidave]

using Oracle!

Good grief another one?

[Christianfreak]

Third article in the last couple of weeks about yet another PHP + MySQL book. They all seem to be for the newbie's too. How about representing some other languages, other databases and some advanced techniques.

Maybe I'm just bitter because of my extreme hatred for PHP.

Re:Good grief another one?

[Anonymous Coward]

go ahead and submit one...

i stopped reading books in '93, so don't look for me to help.

Download the First Four Chapters

[TheAngryMob]

Sitepoint (the publisher) has them here. The downside is you have to give them your email address first.

Re:Download the First Four Chapters

[BlueCoveralls]

Get those chapters here. This link is what you get by email when you give Sitepoint your address. This is not an endorsement.

This page is really useful for building a PHP DB

[bladeohlsson]

If you want to make a database for a FORUM or other online databases on Mac OS X, this is THE site to find everythign you need to do:

http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/ The only thing he forgot is that having a little online webapp called webmin really helps setting up your MYSQL a TON, turst me, it is worth it if you are not an expert with this stuff, even I was able to do it.

Yet another...

[sahala]

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that there's a PHP/MySQL web app book review once a week. I realize that there is more than one book out there that covers this stuff, but still...

http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=php+mysql&op=s tories&author=&tid=&section=books&sort =1

I'll be honest, I'm just bored of seeing reviews of yet another PHP/MySQL book every few days.

Re:Yet another...

[cygnusx197]

Perhaps if you're bored, you can filter out php stories in your preferences.

arrogance or the lack of it

[Anonymous Coward]

There are an awful lot of comments here about this book only being useful to newbies. So far as I can see that is exactly who it is meant to be for. I can program all sorts of stuff, and have been for many years, but I still found this book useful when I had to make a content driven web site a few months ago.

LDAP book like this one?

[trboyden]

Sounds like good stuff, I think I'll pick up this book. Anyone have any recommendations on books regarding setting up and configuring LDAP servers in a style similar to this book?

This book misses the mark

[esconsult1]

One reason why PHP gets such a bad undeserved rap, is because much of the PHP code that's written out there today is a nightmare.

You have uncommented code with embedded HTML that is database specific. Don't get me wrong... if you have a small project that works with a quick hack, then that's ok.

With any modern PHP project, what's wrong with using templates, PEAR, and object oriented programming? Most PHP books out there tend to spin the mantra of PHP and MySQL or Postgresql without taking the time to show how to use PHP in a modern context where it deserves to be. Thus much PHP programming gets scoffed at because it tends to be unmaintainable.

I'm sorry, but at this point I'm unable to recommend almost any of the PHP books out there. They mostly encourange terrible PHP system development practices -- embedded HTML, database specific coding, non OOP development.

There are a few sites that are showing the light. phpclasses.org only has OOP based PHP programs and the tools you need to use templating, mailing, databases in a thoroughly modular manner, and dont forget the PEAR site which documents and make available the excellent PEAR classes for PHP.

A few other sites also are preparing PHP libraries and development environments that are a joy to work with.

For PHP public www information is better that 99% of the books out there, and in the case of this book... 100%

Re:This book misses the mark

[NineNine]

OOP and server-side web site scripting is generally a bad idea. I've never seen an application in which it scales well, or is remotely possible to maintain. In fact, I was with one small company where one blowhard (much like yourself) convinced them to do the whole website with OOP. Well, the website was behind schedule and over budget enough that the company folded. So much for OOP.

Re:This book misses the mark

[tcopeland]

Hmm.... I don't question your experience... but I've found that if a server app is written using classes and such it's much easier to go back and plug in a SOAP wrapper to the "business objects".

For example, GForge has a bunch of classes that we've wrapped via SOAP, so now a Java client can do something like:

Client c = new Client("my.gforge.host", "myproject");
client.login("tom,"fiddlesticks");
Bug[] bugs = client.getOpenBugs();

Fun stuff!

Yours,

Tom

Re:This book misses the mark

[Luveno]

Good points.

I'd like to point out that the same thing can be said about ASP.

Re:This book misses the mark

[mgkimsal2]

And I've been in situations where someone said 'we have to use ASP/MS technologies'. Then the site got way behind schedule and yes, eventually, the company folded. So much for ASP.

???

OO code can be written as poorly as procedural if people don't understand how to model the particular data in a good way *for the project*. It's just another skill. I'd take well done procedural PHP over hacked/crap OO PHP of course, but ideally, well-written OOP is both maintainable and easy to work with.

Re:This book misses the mark

[NineNine]

Well, a wrapper around objects is one thing. Using objects can be great (I use COM objects all of the time), but using strict OOP for something as simple as, say, a web-based shopping cart is entirely too much overhead and complexity. On large volume sites, generally the extra code and the object creation/destruction is enough to drag down the performance of the whole app. OOP purists don't like it, but basic server-side scripting with includes, stored procs, and embedded HTML works very, very well.

Re:This book misses the mark

[skillet-thief]

Most PHP books out there tend to spin the mantra of PHP and MySQL or Postgresql without taking the time to show how to use PHP in a modern context where it deserves to be. Thus much PHP programming gets scoffed at because it tends to be unmaintainable.

I agree 100% with this. I started with php but have moved on to mod_perl, mostly because php books encourage lazy, one shot coding. I've got hundreds of lines of code I am rewriting right now because I have to switch from MySQL to Postrges. If only I wouldda known!

Today I need a modularized setup that is easy to maintain, and it seems like most of the php books don't really encourage this kind of approach. I probably don't need most of the stuff that mod_perl has over php, but the basic idea of separating out modules, packages, or whatever, is going to make my life a lot simpler in the long run.

Re:This book misses the mark

[tcopeland]

Fair enough, there's certainly a place for both ways of doing it... and you can always refactor stuff into classes if it becomes necessary to bolt on XML-RPC or SOAP or whatever...

Yours,

Tom

Re:This book misses the mark

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm -- Are you against ASP.NET? You can't do a single thing without OOP.

COM + ASP is often a nightmare. The supposed speed advantages of coding in a 'real language' are often completely obliterated by object overhead and marshalling. (not to mention the pain of deployment, debugging, etc)

OTOH, we have a large 99% pure ASP codebase that would be a complete nightmare if it wasn't OO. The overhead of pure ASP objects is not that great, and it's not a high volume site anyway. I imagine PHP is similar.

Furthermore, most of the time the slow part of webapps is opening database connections and executing SQL. You can have massive inefficiences in your page code and it's not going to make a statistical difference. Premature optimization ...

Re:This book misses the mark

[Anonymous Coward]

They mostly encourange terrible PHP system development practices....database specific coding, non OOP development.

Non-OO == terrible? Trying to start a paradigm flame-war? Prove it better beyond quoting mantra.

As far as "database-specific coding", there is no generic way to make DB-neutral stuff unless you stick with a very small, crippled subset of SQL. The OO "solution" is often to roll your own (crappy) database from scratch. Write your own OS while you are at it so that you don't have to depend on Linus or Gates.

Re:This book misses the mark

[stefanlasiewski]

For PHP public www information is better that 99% of the books out there, and in the case of this book... 100%

This book isn't oriented to you. You obviously have some PHP programming experience.

Pretend I'm new to PHP programming, and am looking looking for a good PHP book.

You say "This book sucks, go visit these URLs", but those pages are horrible.

Gee, I know that the first PEAR Meeting is in Amsterdam on May 9th at 17:30, but what the heck is PEAR. How is it related to PHP? Why should I care? I can't find a description anywhere, and the "What is PEAR" link is broken. Ack, is this a good example of good PHP development?

The phpclasses.org may be a good repository for PHP classes, but again, those are of little use to a PHP beginner.

Sure, maybe PHP for beginner books should focus more on OOP, maybe it's better then PHP structured.

But most people that I know consider OOP on PHP to be a joke and point me in the direction of something like Java or C# to learn OOP.

Re:This book misses the mark

[NineNine]

I haven't touched .Net. It sounds like too much of a damn headache, and I have yet to have a performance problem with straight ASP.

COM+ASP is great for plugging in black box pieces of code, and just using the API. They'er easy as shit, but you gotta make sure that they're optimized (mainly threaded) for that kind of use. An out-of-process executable + web server = bad.

I've found that on heavy volume sites (250K+ pageviews a day), or sites with a large database in the back end (1+terrabye) that the most efficient way of solving most problems is in the database. Scripting is nice, but if you're dealign with massive amounts of data, you're gonna run outta ram real fast, and on a webserver, that's bad. COM objects are cute, but in real life, with real loads, they generally don't cut it. They're great for customized stuff, but not for something that's hit real heavily. But databases, REAL databases (ie: Oracle, SQL Server) are designed for fast number crunching. I build as much as I can into stored procs, and that tends to work out the best. Just handle your DB connections carefully, and a properly written stored proc is gonna be faster than, well, anything out there.

Re:This book misses the mark

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree that as much logic as possible should go into the DB. However if your app is doing anything non-trivial, you are going to need a bunch of applicaiton logic that can't be written in SQL.

I should clarify that we're not doing anything stupid like creating 1000s of objects. OO is purely a way to organize the code, encapuslate logic, and protect pages against schema tweaks by presenting a stable API. Yes, this can be done procedurally, but if you have 'straight' ASP/PHP 0 layer spaghetti code pages, any sophisticated app is going to get unmaintainable real quickly and then someone starts over. Seen it happen too many times.

Re:This book misses the mark

[Erik Hollensbe]

(Your argument is a fallacy referred to as "Misleading Vividness" -- look it up)

OOP is a design method, and can be done entirely in a procedural context as well.

Large (and I mean LARGE) applications generally fare better from a OOP design.

But it's not a silver bullet. The Linux kernel employs both, and is done in C, a non-OOP language. Sendmail also does it.

We had a large problem with "OOP" in our code, but the fact was, it was not very OO code.

As for the maintaining concept, I've found the exact opposite. When you have a good seperation of bounds (ie, this person works on these classes, this other person works on these, all documented, and another guy actually uses them), OOP really shines. Of course this isn't always possible but if your programmers can still work that concept, it works pretty well.

Poorly designed OOP (I'm guessing by the amount of time it took in your description that the classes weren't designed prior to actual implementation) will be the bane of all things stress-free and a total time-sink... Because there is more design requirement involved. If you just flip open an editor and start writing your class, you're going to have that problem.

Of course, if you're doing roughly the equivalent of writing your pages by hand with a little form processing or whatever, yes, OOP is probably not for you. But then again, you probably shouldn't waste your time writing a ton of code anyways, and just get a few good "webmasters" who can write code too.

Re:The truth is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have NEVER felt a I needed a book to teach me PHP/MySQL, both projects have fantastic online documentation.

I think you pretty much nailed it. PHP books are a waste of money it seems. There are several good, free tutorials, and the syntax is already close to Perl and C. If you've used any programming language, then you can pick up PHP with no problem in an hour or so.

Besides, it seems like so many PHP books (and programming books in general) simply reprint the reference manual inside the book. Hell. I've seen several books for sale which simply reprint the Java API docs in paper form. Who buys these things?

Warning!! Lots of typos that stopps a learner cold

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I bought this book a few months ago to learn just what the title says it teaches. Unfortunately, it had many, many typos in the code examples that resulted in me being stopped cold.

One would need to already know a lot about PHP to know what needed to be fixed. Sadly, there was no online "errata" for the errors that stopped me cold. I think there was an online errata, but it didn't list many of the errors that stopped me cold.

It was only due to my posting the non working code online and getting strangers who already knew PHP to point out what was wrong that I was able to proceed -- at least until the next non corrected error that stopped me cold again.

Finally, In disgust, I gave up and bought the Wrox book (by Welling?) that just came out with a second edition.

What's sad is there is no excuse for the lack of an online errata for the errors that stopped me codl time and time again. I had the latest edition of the book.

IMO, save your money and time -- buy the Wrox book instead and make PROGRESS learning PHP and MySQL.

Despite Assurances

[Oculus Habent]

Though slashdot was certain that I could:

You can purchase Build Your Own Database-Driven Website Using PHP & MySQL, 2nd Ed from bn.com.

Barnes and Noble assured me that, indeed:

Not Currently Available. A new copy is not available from Barnes & Noble.com at this time. A used copy may be available from our network of book dealers.

I cannot. There is one used copy of the book available. If they knew they had the only copy, it'd probably be on e-bay.

Imagine your job was building database...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...driven websites. Imagine that was what you did all day long and you had to do it to bring home enough money to pay the rent and eat food. I don't think I could hack it. I think I'd commit suicide. Even worse, imagine you did this for a living but you didn't realize what a drudge it was. Imagnie you thought it was an interesting job and that you were smart for being able to do it.

My personal experience...

[neurostar]

Or better yet a set of simple, concise data files and a batch method for converting it to static HTML after updates for display on the web. What's this internet coming to?

Actually, I started out developing my website with every single page being dynamically generated using a cgi script. I did it mostly because it was 'cool' to have a 'dynamic' website. I quickly realized that my pentium 166 mHz (which is my webserver) wasn't doing so hot serving up lots of dynamic pages. So it took a slow computer to make me realize how much easier static pages are in some cases.

As a result of what I've learned doing my personal webpage, I'm doing my next major website using static pages that are dynamically generated by perl scripts. That way, I get the efficiency of having a website with a database backend without the overhead of calling perl scripts (or using mod_perl which is still slower than static pages afaik).

Just my personal experience...

Also, I'm hesitant to do pages like that book teaches (in PHP or Perl) because if the database goes... you're SOL. Using static pages generated from scripts allows you to still serve up content if the database dies.

neurostar

Size = Book's Ambition, parent is lazy I think.

[gwappo]

I personally find, the bigger the book, the more difficult it is to navigate and the less useful it really becomes.Don't agree :

Computer Graphics, Principles and Practice. 1175 pages.

Compilers: Principles, Techniques, Tools. 796 pages.

Competitive Advantage. 557 pages

The whole D. Knuth series.

TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1,2,3

list goes on and on and on! I'd say the author of a large book is more ambitious, and thus more prone to fail, but all "true bibles" tend to be large.

Re:Size = Book's Ambition, parent is lazy I think.

[phillyclaude]

Computer Graphics, Principles and Practice. 1175 pages.
Compilers: Principles, Techniques, Tools. 796 pages.
Competitive Advantage. 557 pages
The whole D. Knuth series.
TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1,2,3
Having bragging rights over who can name the Geekiest books: Priceless

Don't forget Maintenance

[DrSkwid]

Ther eis a place for PHP when having a dynamic back end to a static or semi-static front end.

Personally I use mod_perl to maintain a cache. The backend PHP will clear the cached pages as necessary. If an uncached page is requested mod_perl passes it on to PHP to generate it and pops a copy in the cache.

My clients can then update their contents (job adverts) as often as they like and my site will keep the navigation menus up to date.

I also scrape content from our partners.

In this way I can forget about the CPU load of the page generation.

FYI

[buddha42]

The people behind this book also run an excellent website on web-development:
www.sitepoint.com

not robust?

[Anonymous Coward]

"unless you start using a more robust database solution than MySQL"

you're saying MySQL is not robust???

Re:not robust?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>you're saying MySQL is not robust???

It fails the ACID test. It is not robust.

Your Answer: Moveable Type

[aaandre]

MT does just that and is widely used by the blogging community.

There are many plugins available for it, too.

All you need is CGI (perl) support on your server -- it doesn't require a database and the site it generates is based on static pages (partially) updated every time the admin makes a change.

Re:Your Answer: Moveable Type

[mkelley]

I have to vouch for this, as I use Movable Type as a non-blog CMS for my work site, an 800-bed hospital receiving thousands of hits a day. I looked at building a dynamic solution, but decided to have friendly URLs, and to not tax the server with constant db connections. My event calendar and about 80% of the pages are inside of MT, with our job listings as the only section pulling things from outside Movable Type.

Order Directly From Sitepoint

[TheTomcat]

here

S

Best PHP templates? Smarty!

[SailFly]

Does anyone here use Smarty? We love it, and have found it to be a wonderful template engine.
It has a great user manual, but I would welcome a good PHP book that deals with Smarty templates.

smarty.php.net

whatever, dude...

[pb]

PHP indeed borrowed a lot of language features from Perl, but its syntax is strictly C-like; no required braces, no embedded regexps, no magical, one-character variables, etc., etc.

I agree with you that PHP's functions are awkward, but I'm sure you can find a way to implement namespaces in PHP--PHP has classes, it has hashes, and it has an eval() function, so you can probably figure something out. What I really hate is how PHP handles variables and scoping--that's really criminal. Also, anonymous subroutines and closures would be nice to have...

I never really wanted to write as much PHP as I have, but I don't think it's difficult to be a competent PHP programmer--it's just like being a competent programmer. Just because a lot of people aren't doesn't necessarily mean that it's a problem with PHP. I admit that I'd rather be doing all this in Perl, though, because some of PHP's 'features' and version incompatibilities are a real pain sometimes. Maybe *that's* why it's hard to find competent PHP programmers...

There are tons of templating engines for PHP; I've basically hacked together my own solution as well. I haven't compared them, but doing everything in pure PHP seems pretty simple to me; it has an include() function, and that's really 99% of what you need.

So I agree with you that PHP has some serious problems, but I think I disagree with you about exactly what those problems are. :)

Re:whatever, dude...

[Christianfreak]

no required braces, no embedded regexps, no magical, one-character variables, etc., etc.

Perl doesn't always require braces. I love embedded regexs and one character variables (though I know a lot of people don't).

Totally agree with you on anonymous subs, and the scoping.

I don't think it's difficult to be a competent PHP programmer--it's just like being a competent programmer.

I agree with you here to. The problem I see is since PHP has a function for everything you get people who just throw functions around without really learning how x feature could or should really be done. 90% of the PHP code I've ever seen uses include() to include some extra HTML like a header or footer, almost never to modularize code.

I don't disagree that PHP can have namespaces but they aren't there automatically, you have to create them. My beef about the namespace is that tons of the core functions ought to have their own built-in class that can be loaded optionally. Things like array_* and mysql_* bug me... why don't they have a class Array and a class Mysql if its supposed to be OO then lets be OO. Otherwise, especially for the array_* functions, drop the array part, we know it works on arrays, save us some typing! :)

please please please don't encourage it!

[smitty45]

i have to deal with architectures that get enormous traffic, and from a performance standpoint, there is simply nothing worse than dynamic database-backend content.

i pose that 95% of the sites out there don't need it. at ALL. use php for content management, yes, but BUILD STATIC PAGES!!!! to do otherwise is just silly and asking for headaches.

Help with Mac OS X?

[jaysones]

Does this book cover installation on Mac OS X? If I wanted to learn PHP, would this book apply to a local Mac installation?

Re:Help with Mac OS X?

[avignonpieta]

a better book to pick up would be O'Reilly's Mac OS X for Unix Geeks, which has a section on setting up a DAMP system (Darwin, Apache, MySQL, Perl/PHP/Python). Pretty cheap too, you can get it from B&N or Amazon.

Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this manual and this one more valuable than any book. And it's free too.

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most stupid post I've ever seen, I'm out of slashdot, for ever and for good!

Thanks for the link...

[hendridm]

...because we wouldn't have been able to find it without a link pointing directly to it.

After all, search engines are for whimps.

BTW, nice referal ID. Informative indeed.

Re:Thanks for the link...

[teslatug]

Thanks for the sarcastic comments, we all needed them. I searched for myself, and figured I would save a couple of people the trouble. If you run the search on the title, you'll see the exact same (or pretty similar) link. The id referral brings me no money as it is an internally generated URL and in no way associated to me. If you'd searched it yourself as, you would have noticed that.

All of 'em!

[benja]

[A]ll 295 pages of Yank's new release are of value to me on a daily basis.

Goodness. You must spend a significant amount of your work time every day reading through them, right?

Wish I could say the same for Geschwinde & Sch

[mnemotronic]

Avoid "PHP and PostgreSQL - Advanced Web Programming" by Ewald Geschwinde and Hans-Jürgen Schönig [Sams 0-672-32382-6]. This book is infected with enough misprints and errors to render it unusable, but at 770+ pages, at least it's bigger'n yours. More 'spensive too. neener-neener-neener.

Re:Best PHP templates? Smarty!

[Anonymous Coward]

php is a template engine, why build an other one on top of it like smarty does. The only thing smarty really does is force you to seperate business logic and layout. You can also do that without using smarty. I mean What is so much more difficult from using

compared to {$bla}

Templating

[thinkninja]

Try XSLT.

It's powerful, has it's own php extension (instead of php classes like smarty and patTemplate -- although, come to think of it, the extension is just a Sablotron API so meh), and it's a W3C standard. On the downside, you need to configure your environment, which can be a problem depending on your hosting solution. You'll also have to learn XSL and work with XML but the semantic web is the future so get used to it.

Get the book here:

[foo fighter]

You can buy the book directly from the publisher ($34.95): http://www.sitepoint.com/books/

The home page of SitePoint has a lot of articles on planning, designing, and coding (client- and server-side) for the web.

There's even a picture of the pretty-boy author.

Acronym abuse -- WTF is PEAR?

[aquarian]

Please don't spring new acronyms upon us without defining them. Not all of us are clued into the PHP world, and all its pet names and acronyms.

Re:Acronym abuse -- WTF is PEAR?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like you did a lot of research and it's completely understandable that you wouldn't be able to figure out how PEAR relates to PHP.

Re:HOWTO-Build a DIY DB-driven site

[drauh]

What do people think of OpenACS?

dejavu

[axxackall]

I cannot believe. There are tons of PHP, MySQL, and PHP+MySQL book. There tons of online discussions about that PHP and MySQL are very primitive, limited restricted and sometimes even dangerous technologies. There are very few books about PostgreSQL, Python and Zope. There tons of online discussions about that PostgreSQL, Python and Zope are superior technologies. Meanwhile new books are still published on the market, sold on book stores and reviewed on Slasdot for PHP/MySQL. Why?

The only explanation I can come with is that either most of computer books readers are so stupid and ignorant or, if they are not, then publishers are so stupid to ignore what readers really need. Either way, the computer world is stupid and there is no place for smart technologies.

Zzz

[john_smith_45678]

Good Lord, ANOTHER article about PHP+MySQL. More authors trying to capitalize on the uninformed newbie market. LAPP (Linux Apache PostgreSQL PHP) NOT LAMP!

Turck MMCache

[Kunta Kinte]

Or this: http://www.turcksoft.com/en/e_mmc.htm

Seems very fast and actively developed.

Who wouldn't?-Developers,developers,developers.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Additionally, those sights can look good on a Resume since it shows the person has enough interest in the technology to play with it outside of the workplace."

Would that happen to be the same
Resume that is presently out of work?

Measurement of book length is meaningless-Says her

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just because a book is long, doesn't mean it's useful."

It's not how long it is, but how you use it. :)

Re:Warning!! Lots of typos that stopps a learner c

[jmobley]

But answer me this... did the book ever stop you cold at any point?

OK, I'm being an ass. Sorry. :)

Re:HOWTO-Build a DIY DB-driven site-alternatives.

[Anonymous Coward]

Enhydra for the Java set is good, or Ariadne for the PHP crowd is decent. For those doing a shopping-cart Interchange or osCommerce is nice. If one's running a RPM distribution get cpan2rpm as well.

Agreed

[Silent1]

initially i was the same, wasn't this book but web database management which sounds something similiar to this book. But the book started to loose its value after a while and then you just depend on mysql.com and php.net for their manuals.

If I see one more of these damn....

[atheken]

//Begin Flame
Programming a dynamic PHP/MySQL website is "stupid easy" as a friend of mine says. I am so tired of seeing these "all-in-one" books. If they made a PHP/MySQL for Dummys book - it'd be 4 pages long. Maybe after reading this book, the websites write themselves. The hardest part of designing these websites ends up being whether you can keep the customer from changing their mind for long enough to push the project out. Criticisms I have for alot of PHP/MySQL combo books are that they generally don't include these:

- Good documentation on Objects
- Security Concerns
- php.ini explaination and configuration
- Memory Concerns
- Good examples of database normalization?

Sorry, but I think that if you've got a good MySQL database book, and the digital format of the PHP manual (available in multiple formats from www.php.net) You have everything you need but the server. INCIDENTALLY: MySQL not "robust" enough? 4.1 is going to hit you like a freight train.

Job mystery solved

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the only jobs available in PHP and MySQL is in writing books about PHP and MySQL because there are more books than there are jobs

New Books Please

[sunbane]

Shouldn't a book review be for a recent book? This one is almost two years old - so old it isn't even available on Amazon, BN.com, or Bookpool... How about some new stuff instead of the book gathering dust on your shelf that you finally got around to reading?!?!

No need for SQL in MySQL?

[Anonymous Coward]

MySQL IS a robust implementation of ANSI-SQL.

For a side-by-side comparison to DB2, MS SQL, Oracle and Sybase, follow the link below:

http://www.mysql.com/information/crash-me.php?my sq l_4_1=on&oracle=on&ms_sql=on&db2=on&sybase =on

These absurd statements that MySQL is a kiddie SQL server are driven more by marketing than anything else. I expect this crap from managers, but it floors me to hear it coming from developers. I can't imagine any experienced DBA would think that the SQL implementation in MySQL is so pathetic that it would not even require a newbie to have a SQL reference.

Re:No need for SQL in MySQL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at the current (not preview, actual current) version of MySQL:

- no unique
- no foreign keys
- no default value for columns
- no subqueries

Even though they *finally* drug at least one part of the project out of the dark ages and supported transactions, they're still missing some INCREDIBLY important features.

I don't care how favorably "crash-me" makes it look in comparison to XYZ. It's still a kiddie, home-brew SQL server.

Re:No need for SQL in MySQL?

[Anonymous Coward]

4.0 IS Production,
DOES support unique,
DOES support default values,
DOES support unions and transactions

4.1 supports recursive subqueries

In many circumstances, MySQL would not be appropriate. That's an obvious point. However, I have used MS-SQL and Sybase in production and in most cases they are severe overkill, especially if the vast majority of applications are accessing via beans in an app server. The SQL subset in even Microsoft Access is complex enough to recommend someone have a clue about SQL and that applies in MySQL. The fact that my production servers are bigger, better and more expensive makes no difference. SQL is a concise language, but a language reference with pattern samples is certainly not to be discouraged.

Re:No need for SQL in MySQL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, since this is au-flambeau, here's my biased perspective (my skew: 7 years as a production oracle dba working with terabyte-sized databases including those with > 50,000 tables and indexes):

oracle is superb, scalable, and has too many features and costs way too much
DB2 is okay, as long as you aren't the BANK OF DENMARK (see the register for the recent snafu)
ms-sql-server is 10 years behind oracle and only runs on ms platforms
postgresql is a potentially great dbms but cant perform hot backups (pg-dump is an export, not a hot backup kiddies)
SAP-db is a good small-scale plug in replacement for oracle but uses an obscure technology
firebird is a joke
mysql is the *nix version of ms-access

There! I feel better now.

Re:No need for SQL in MySQL?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, berkleyDB would be a better fit for ms-access on *nix. MySQL while touted as THE solution to every problem in the universe (sort of like with Perl) the fact remains that MySQL is a very fast but full SQL interfaced database. I do think it is silly to compare it to Oracle but I also think that many times that Oracle is in place that PostgreSQL or even MySQL would be better. Overpowering can be very underpowering when efficiency is considered (not just cost efficiency either)

Re:Best PHP templates? Smarty!

[messju]

i think with separating business logic from layout, smarty is also good for separating the programmer's job from designer's job. this can *really* save some administrative work if you don't built all aspects of an entire site alone.

Useless Commercial for Barnes&Noble

[jcartaya]

The book review on Kevin Yank's "Build..." is followed by a link to Barnes and Noble, to buy the book.

When you follow the link, BN informs you they've run out of print with the book. :-(

If you go to some other online bookstores, you find the second edition readily available.

Who would have guessed?

[sholden]

A book specifically written about the domain you are interested has more relevant content than multiple books written about the larger domains your subdomain is a part of.

I'm truly shocked.

Next you'll be saying that if I want to learn how to build a wooden chair a book called 'How to build a wooden chair' would have more relevant content than both 'Carpentry 101' and 'Wood: from Trees to Sawmills'.

What, exactly, is the purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

of reviewing an Out of Print book?

EXAMPLE

[systemaster]

You can see an example here I just started a small website that is all static, and it does something like what you say. you enter your body message in a text file and run the script(see link for script) and it regenerates that page. Also you can change another file the change the menu and run the script to regenerate all the pages. So here is a perfect example of what you are saying to do, minus the fact that it doesn't do the uploading. But I do belive I'll take a look at that book my meathod for parts and the books meathod for parts of a site would expand options.

Maybe, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno... it did a pretty good job of explaining blobs to me. That was worth it to me. (Oh and the PDF stuff wass pretty good too).

2nd Edition avalible now

[Anonymous Coward]

2nd Edition
Covers PHP 4.3
Covers OSX!
Don't wait
Buy it now!

Amazon

Blanket statements like this are useless

[Anonymous Coward]

> Who wouldn't build their own database website...

Lots of people (who know what they're doing).

Some sites need to be fully dynamic, most sizable sites need some dynamic content, many need no database content at all.

Stop making generalizations and start thinking.

Couldn't find, but found some gold

[candycrusher]

I went to my local Barnes and Noble and Borders to see if I could find this book, given the great review. No luck.

However I picked up a copy of Open Source Web Development with LAMP that's by the same guys that wrote Hacking Linux Exposed and it is really great. It has an extensive PHP chapter, but the real juice is in how it covers all of apache setup, perl, php, mysql, and even mason, HTML::embperl, and WML in one place. I'd never heard of it, but when I flipped through it on the shelf I couldn't put it down. I highly recomend it.

Re:Warning!! Lots of typos that stopps a learner c

[web-res]

Do you have the first edition or the 2nd edition? There's not a single errata item for the new edition which just came out a month ago.

uh, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you suggesting that a jet database could actually handle concurrent read/write of more than oh... 5 at a time? Jet database is a file and that is about it. I think it is great for a simple desktop engine for organizing the number and types of socks you have but as a multi-tiered app? No way, Jose!