Comments on: AMFPHP vs. WeborbPHP

By: David C. Moody

David C. Moody — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:52:53 +0000

On April 30, 2008, Midnight coders released version 3.0.0 for PHP.

I just ran your test code, with the new version and AMF still beats Weborb for the Invoke & Invoke 100 times. For invoke large dataset, AMF completed in 750ms & Weborb in 780ms.

Not too bad for large datasets.

By: Wade Arnold

Wade Arnold — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:38:48 +0000

Make sure you run these tests again and update this post in about three weeks. All take the time to type pecl install amfext and watch AMFPHP smoke your .net gateway. AMFPHP is live and strong be there is some massive house cleaning going on.

By: david_deraedt

david_deraedt — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:31:37 +0000

I totally agree with you on this. I see no reason why one shouldn’t be able to run such tests. If they do not agree with the results or the methodology, then I’d like them to tell us why. To me, this kind of attitude is actually more concerning than the actual performance issues.

By: Ids

Ids — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:33:10 +0000

Ok, I didn’t know you could use a generic destination, good to know. I haven’t really digged in the authentication of WebOrb, but I agree that the system AMFPHP uses is not very usable.
I will make a test for authentication next week, so just wait and find out.
I also agree that the WebOrb management system has more features than the AMFPHP Service Browser, the question is: do you need them?
I don’t like the flexed Service Browser of AMFPHP, I liked the HTML version better (because it would just parse your classes and tell you where the errors in your code are, unlike the flex version, which just gives a flex error).
And don’t get me wrong, I did this test to see which product would be better to use for my company (which also uses the .NET version of WebOrb and is quite happy about it). So, money and licensing is not really an issue. So it’s not that I WANT AMFPHP to be the better gateway, it IS the better gateway (imho).

Furthermore, I got an e-mail from the midnightcoders, stating that I should give them heads up, before publishing a test like this. I cannot think of any reason why I should do that, and even if I did, I also should send AMFPHP a message. Come on guys, you’re a professional company and you’re beaten by some open source initiative (at least at the performance part). Instead of whining, start doing something one those performance issues.

By: justGREAT! (Arno van Oordt)

justGREAT! (Arno van Oordt) — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:47:52 +0000

Nice test. Always good to know. Not only is it fast but also a lot smaller

grtz Arno

By: david_deraedt

david_deraedt — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:47:02 +0000

Thanks for these tests.
Now, performance is important, but what about security? AMFPHP’s lack of a decent authentication system is a major issue. WebORB’s system, while far from being perfect, is decent.
Besides, WeborbPHP remoting-config file configuration is not something you always have to do. I use a “GenericDestination” from the flex side, and I’ve never had to edit any WebORBPHP file to make it work. Just like AMFPHP, I publish the folder to my server, and it just works.
Finally, WebORBPHP’s manager is, IMHO, far better than AMFPHP’s ServiceBrowser.
I understand that the community would really love AMFPHP to be the best PHP gateway out there, since it’s a completely free/opensource initiative, while midnightcoders is a company. Unfortunately, I’m really not sure about it (notwithstanding performance issues).

By: Ids

Ids — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:32:22 +0000

Thanks for your reply. Framework support at the backend is indeed also an important feature, but not what I meant with the code generator. The code generator in WebOrb can generated AS code for frameworks like Cairngorm.

But you are right when you say that support of frameworks and content management systems is something the community should do, not the developers of AMFPHP and WebOrb.

By: Akeem

Akeem — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:48:43 +0000

AMFPHP was handed over to a new developer who is doing some house cleaning. Even if future development ceased completely I wouldn't be worried because the AMF spec is fully implemented and it does what I need it to do efficiently. You can speed up AMFPHP even further with a c extension . I think framework support and stuff is something that could be contributed by developers like us (I'm not pointing fingers cause I do feel that I don't contribute enough to a product that I have used for so long). One I have been working on is integration into zend framework. (I also did integration with Code Igniter)