New Typo3 extension unleashed: cwdblog

Working with Extbase a lot, I always found it very cumbersome to see the actual SQL queries which were produced by the Persistance layer. One solution would be to turn on MySQLs general log, but this is not very convenient.

So I decided to change that. The result can be found here: cwdblog on GitHub

cwdblog will log all DB queries which are run against the table(s) you can configure via the Extension Manager. It will be logged using the system log and the devlog extension (if installed). It will also write the queries into a global array (GLOBALS[‘___cwdblog’]) so that it is even easier to access to debug sessions.

In order to tell cwdblog which tables to actually log, please go to the extension manager, edit the extension configuration and change the tableName regular expression as you need.

Slashes will be added, so e.g. mycool will result in /mycool/, which will let cwdblog log all queries for tables which include the string ‘mycool’. This could be e.g. tx_mycoolextension_domain_model_blog or tx_myotherextension_domain_model_mycooltable.

Please note that this extension should not be used on production servers yet, since it is not very well tested).

Traits and Extbase

With Extbase, accessing the extensions settings outside Controllers (e.g. in a Repository) requires some manual work which is always the same. I don’t know why Extbase doesn’t support us with helper functions, but anyway, let’s put this needed code where we can reuse it easily.

Being limited to PHP 5.3 until last month, my usual approach was to inherit the Repository from an Abstract class which contained a set of often used functions. This still works fine, but if you want these functions to be used in let’s say a Typo3 hook class, or a Scheduler task (where the Extbase support is even worse! Geez!), you probably end up writing a couple of Abstract classes which are more or less the same. Of course you can inherit the Abstract class from another abstract class … which again doesn’t work with Scheduler tasks, because they need to inherit from a base class anyways… nah…

Since we now use PHP 5.4 on our production servers (and yes, I am aware that 2014 is almost over), I felt urged to find out whether Traits can be used with Extbase. Surprisingly (working with Extbase and Typo3 is easier with a good amount of sarcasm) it was as easy as it should be! I tested it on Extbase 6.2, and the Autoloader loads the Trait without any hassle.

Here’s some example. First, the trait itself:


namespace Vendor\Myextension\Library;

trait Settings
     * The extensions name
     * @var string
    protected $extensionName;

     * Typo3 Settings array
     * @var array
    protected $settings;

     * @var \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Configuration\ConfigurationManagerInterface
    protected $configurationManager;

     * @param \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Configuration\ConfigurationManagerInterface $configurationManager
     * @inject
    public function injectConfigurationManager(\TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Configuration\ConfigurationManagerInterface $configurationManager) {
        $this->configurationManager = $configurationManager;

     * Getter for $extensionName
     * @return string
    public function getExtensionName() {
        if ($this->extensionName === NULL) {
            $className = get_class($this);
            if (strpos($className, '\\') !== FALSE) {
                $classNameParts = explode('\\', $className, 4);
                // Skip vendor and product name for core classes
                if (strpos($className, 'TYPO3\\CMS\\') === 0) {
                    $this->extensionName = $classNameParts[2];
                } else {
                    $this->extensionName = $classNameParts[1];
            } else {
                list(, $this->extensionName) = explode('_', $className);

        return $this->extensionName;

     * Setter for $extensionName
     * @param string $extensionName
     * @return Settings
    public function setExtensionName($extensionName) {
        $this->extensionName = $extensionName;
        return $this;

     * Setter for $settings
     * @param array $settings
     * @return $this
    public function setSettings($settings) {
        $this->settings = $settings;

        return $this;

     * Getter for $settings
     * The settings are loaded from the configurationManager on demand only.
     * If this is called outside Extbase (i.e. from a system hook, or a scheduler task) you must use
     * \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Configuration\ConfigurationManagerInterface::CONFIGURATION_TYPE_FULL_TYPOSCRIPT
     * and fetch the extensions settings via the array structure, e.g.
     * $this->settings['plugin.']['yourextension.']['persistence.']['storagePid']
     * @param string $settingsType
     * @return array
    public function getSettings($settingsType = \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Configuration\ConfigurationManagerInterface::CONFIGURATION_TYPE_SETTINGS) {
        if ($this->settings === NULL) {
            $this->settings = $this->configurationManager->getConfiguration(
                $settingsType, $this->getExtensionName()

        return $this->settings;

No rocket science, but stuff you need all over again. I decided to use “Library” as namespace, but this doesn’t really matter.

So far, so easy. To include a trait, you only need to add the “use”-statement inside your class, e.g. in a repository:


namespace Vendor\Myextension\Domain\Repository;

class SomeSeriousStuff
    // Note the "use" statement within the class. This inserts our Trait class.
    use \Vendor\Myextension\Library\Settings;

    public function mySeriousFunction() {
        $settings = $this->getSettings();
        // ... do some serious things here with the settings

This works really smooth, I think I will get used to Traits very soon.

Fun fact: shortly after finishing my Extension where I used Traits for the first time, I was asked for a PHP 5.3 compatible version. Fuuuuuu……

Template Engines vs. PHTML

The Problem: Performance. Once again.

It was time to think again about the use of Template Engines (i.e. those like Smarty or Fluid who offer their own syntax) versus so called PHTML files (i.e. basically mixed HTML and PHP), as one of my colleagues currently works on a Typo3 Extbase extension with a very huge HTML output. Unfortunately the rendering process was extremely slow. In our case Fluid, the template engine that comes bundled with Extbase, was to blame.

Although using compiled templates, it took about 6 seconds to render. After clearing the cache it was way beyond 20 seconds until the templates were compiled again. What the heck. Where does this massive overhead come from?

Looking at the compiled templates, I was a bit shocked: one of it had almost 20.000 lines of PHP code, tons of closures and function calls! It was just a template, now it is a monster. 6 seconds rendering time is not acceptable at all. Surely the extension produced a big HTML code, using loads of loops, partials and view helpers, but we had to find a way to deal with it.

Two options where obvious at that moment:

  1. Do we really need to use Fluid?
  2. How about loading at least parts of the content, which is not immediately used, via AJAX?

I admit I’m biased. I never liked using any Template Engine in PHP. That’s why I had a closer look at option 1, while my colleague started working on option 2 meanwhile.


Let’s think about the Pros and Cons of using template engines in PHP. Here is what we came out with:


  • No PHP knowledge required to build templates: yeah, sure. This is a common argument. So it is ok for the Webdesigner to learn a new template engine, but too much to learn PHP basics. Plus, at least in our team there is nobody who doesn’t speak PHP.
  • Templates are cleaner, easier to read: this depends on the template engine of course, but considering Fluid I would agree on that. It is not very important for me, though.
  • No risk of PHP abuse in template: Yip, good point. I guess we’ve all had these “WTF!?!” moments when we looked at PHTML templates, finding functions with business logic in templates. This surely requires the coders to be disciplined, and/or Code Reviews.
  • Template Engines offer caching mechanisms: true. But without caching they wouldn’t even come close to the performance of PHTML files. There’s nothing to say against implementing your own caching when you use PHTML templates, though.


  • Using a template engine produces overhead: you can’t ignore the fact that a templating engine per se is additional overhead. This is not necessarily bad, when the overhead is low, but when the content takes more than double the time to render it might not be the correct choice.
  • Templates can not be debugged properly: I’m used to develop using a PHP debugger a lot, especially when I have to deal with many variables and nested arrays. I can’t use that in templates. I can use it in PHTML files.
  • “Why did my change don’t come through? Ah, I forgot to clear the cache again!”: If this applies to you, as it does for me, then template engines can be a bit of a pain sometimes.
  • “I’m not slacking off, my code’s compiling”: Not only a smart reference to XKCD, but also a very annoying aspect: if you develop, you either turn off caching completely (slow!), or you have to clear the cache whenever needed (annoying – and slow!).

Ok, there are some points which speak for Template Engines, but are they really worth the overhead? This surely depends on personal preferences, but for me it was clear: No. It is not.

Conclusion: Go back

Great. We wanted to stick with Extbase, but we didn’t want to use Fluid all the time. So we need a PHTML template renderer for Extbase. It should at least cover the following requirements:

  • We want true MVC! View and Logic must be separated.
  • Extbase/Fluid must not be modified. Copy&Paste has to be avoided.
  • The PHTML renderer should be easy to integrate. Existing controller actions shouldn’t be rewritten at all.
  • The use of Fluid should still be possible.
  • Partials must be supported.
  • Fluid ViewHelpers should be supported, at least some sort of ViewHelpers must exist. Namespaces for ViewHelpers would be nice.

Of course there is a mayor drawback: all the Fluid templates which already existed need to be “backported” to PHTML. Oh well…

It should however show that the required goal was very easy to achieve. This will be shown in the next post.

What are your views on Template Engines? Maybe we missed the one argument to use them instead of PHTML?