Hi guys

Again thanks for your input. We understand, the company website will be launched soon, so that we can make ourselves known to the community, which will hopefully take some question and doubts off people who are interested in using CIEX, but are feeling insecure about doing so.

As mentioned before, please keep your eye out for updates, as we may release something in the near future.

Thanks!

bah, there’s nothing special about CIEX.php at all, i was expecting more elaborate code after decrypting it, but there’s only like 12 functions, all about 7 or 8 lines long, the biggest of them all being the save function.

and most of it is using standard CI active record stuff, i really don’t see why you would have bothered encrypting it in the first place.

lol i was so expecting this

ray73864 - 07 August 2009 06:39 PM

bah, there’s nothing special about CIEX.php at all, i was expecting more elaborate code after decrypting it, but there’s only like 12 functions, all about 7 or 8 lines long, the biggest of them all being the save function.

and most of it is using standard CI active record stuff, i really don’t see why you would have bothered encrypting it in the first place.

Hi ray73864

Did we in any of our previous posts and on our website say that the ORM was something extraordinary and special? If so please quote.
We understand that this is an open-source community, and many people are against protected code. We value our ORM, and had the implementation idea ourselves from scratch (whether it was an original idea or not, is not for us to judge, as we cannot guarantee that there are no implementations like this around already). We just hope that you can respect it.

From the encrypted file, you can already tell that the code is not massive, so what’s the surprise, really?

We focused on minimalistic code, whilst achieving what we needed to use for our projects. If you dislike the implementation, then simply use another ORM.

But thank you for taking the time to decode the file, and showing interest in our ORM. I hope you find the rest of CIEX useful and equally as interesting!

Not really, i had no actual intention of using it, i think ORMs are a lazy way of doing things when it comes to production systems.

I just saw an opportunity, having an encoded file was basically like ‘omg, we put out this competition for your to just TRY and decode it’, and seeing as how everyone else was against the whole protected code thing, that just gave me more ambition.

come on people get over it. the team took some time to fix what they taught was wrong,incomplete etc. with ci and share with the world

yes they encoded the orm and that’s not a crime.

ci is a great framework and the first thing that got me to use it was the documentation and the community everyone is sharing and helping around so let’s keep that going.

if u want use the “extended version” they build use it and share some constructive opinion.

i hope i not offended anyone, i do apologise if i did
thanks to everybody in the community u guys are one of the greatest strength of ci

one advice to @nizsmo : share the extended version without the orm and make that available as a separate module library or whatever u like. i think this will make everyone happy
and maybe u want to tell people (in the docs) that the orm is encoded

The only qualm I have with the encrypted library is that on the website they are pushing CIEX as an Object Relational Mapping Framework. Two things are wrong with that: firstly, the code is encrypted; and secondly, it isn’t up to scratch.

@quasiperfect, thanks for your suggestion, we will definitely look into it. And thanks for voicing your opinion!

Adam, we understand and have established that most people do not like encrypted code. Are you able to tell me the reason as to why you think it is not “up to scratch”, and where you are getting the benchmark to judge if code is “up to scratch” or not?
As mentioned the ORM is nothing surperb and magnificent, but we value it for its simplicity and implementation. So we are curious what kind of feedback you can give?
Encrypting the file does not alter the fact that it is still an ORM, so apart from the limitation of not being able to see the actual code, can you tell us why it is wrong to call it an ORM Framework?

We appreciate your feedback, and was just curious as to your reasoning behind your comments.

Thanks!

nizsmo - 08 August 2009 06:52 AM

@quasiperfect, thanks for your suggestion, we will definitely look into it. And thanks for voicing your opinion!

Adam, we understand and have established that most people do not like encrypted code. Are you able to tell me the reason as to why you think it is not “up to scratch”, and where you are getting the benchmark to judge if code is “up to scratch” or not?
As mentioned the ORM is nothing surperb and magnificent, but we value it for its simplicity and implementation. So we are curious what kind of feedback you can give?
Encrypting the file does not alter the fact that it is still an ORM, so apart from the limitation of not being able to see the actual code, can you tell us why it is wrong to call it an ORM Framework?

We appreciate your feedback, and was just curious as to your reasoning behind your comments.

Thanks!

I believe the whole fad behind naming the framework on the functionality of one library is nothing short of dumb.

Also I am not the one who said the code is not up to scratch, simply read this forum thread and you will see.

It also seems that even though you are asking for comments and you say you are open to all suggestions, you haven’t taken any suggestions on board; you’ve simply reaffirmed your own decisions. When asking for comments and saying you will take all comments on board, actually take them on board. It’s no good promising things for the future which is clearly not going to happen given your current frame of mind that code must be encrypted because it took more than an hour to create.

Hi Adam

No offense, but if you think that the whole idea around what we want to share is “dumb”, then why are you still here?
We are simply sharing something which we think may be useful to some other users, nobody is being forced to use anything. If you are so against our idea and what we are sharing here, then we will accept it, and move on. You have made your point, so thanks!

Please take a look at when the thread was started, and the version history. Do not go assuming we won’t take any suggestions aboard when it has merely been no more than 2 weeks ago since we made CIEX public, and its still in the beta stage.

Is it really necessary to post such negative and rude statements in your post(s), all because we encrypted an ORM and the “forum thread” tells you that the code is not up to scratch?

I do not intend to flame anyone here, but posting statements such as above is simply pointless. Since when is wanting to share something simple a negatively criticized activity?

Anyhow, thanks for stopping by and telling us how you feel about CIEX!