Would you agree this is the definition of a PHP framework?

[TomB]

@tony_marston404

Don’t be silly. The word “component” means “constituent part” and can also be referred to as “module”. A module can also be made of sub-modules. In software a high-level component can be a user transaction, and each user transactions may be comprised of other modules or components which in OOP would be objects or functions. These are simply different words for the same thing.

So yes, a component or “module” can be broken up into smaller parts. You’re contradicting what you said here:

@tony_marston404

There is no reference to size in his 2014 article, so “too big” or “to small” are irrelevant when in comes to splitting a monolithic piece of code into smaller units. His 2014 article specifically states that ALL GUI logic should be in its own component (although I have actually split that into separate Views and Controllers), ALL business logic should be in its own component, and ALL database logic should be in its own component. There is absolutely nothing in that article which states that if any of that logic exceeds a particular method count or line count that the component should be split into smaller sub-components.

If all logic is in the same component, it doesn’t necessarily mean the same class! (In fact it most certainly does not in most cases!). So yes, all GUI code should be in its own COMPONENT but that component can (And should if we follow SRP) be split into sub-components, or submodules as you just referred to them.

Again this goes back to your misuse of SRP/SoC. In this scenario a component fulfils a concern, that component may be made up of many classes. SRP is applied at a class level, not a component level. This has been explained to you by Scott and others on at least a dozen occasions.

Let’s put it this way: If SRP and SoC are the same thing, why do they have different wikipedia pages?