29. Jan. 2016

Developing CakePHP 3+ Plugins, it’s fun!

29 Jan

It is fun – and it should be!

The days of CakePHP 2 plugins and how difficult it was to actually develop plugins are over.
Back in the days (OK, I still have to do it once in a while), there was even an app required to test a plugin. Since you didn’t want to have a boilerplate app for each plugin, you usually worked in your actual app. So you had cross contamination from that messing up your tests and stuff. Really annoying.
The only thing I am still missing once in a while is the web test runner, as it speeds up things for some use cases (usually with browser related output).

While most of the concrete examples are about plugin development for CakePHP 3, the main ideas apply to all library code you write. And if you are a developer for other frameworks, the same principles apply, only the concrete implementation might differ. So you could skip the "real story" part.

Well, but now to the fun part I promised in the title.

CakePHP 3 plugin development – real story

My goal was simple: Developing a simple plugin for hashids support in CakePHP in a few hours.

The CakePHP plugin docs mentioned a few basics, but in the following paragraphs I want
to go into more concrete details.

How do you start?
I started by creating a fresh GitHub repo "cakephp-hashid" and cloning it (git clone URL).

Then I added the boilerplate stuff like composer.json and gitignore file. You can either copy and paste from existing ones,
or even bake your plugin code (cake bake plugin Name) and move it to your stand-alone plugin.
Keeping in the app is also possible, but I prefer to keep it outside and develop it test driven until it is in a working state.
This way you are usually faster. TDD – test driven development – actually helps to speed up development, and you get tests with it for free.

Now it was time to set up the behavior code and the constructor setup as well as a test file.
With php phpunit.phar I already got immediate results of the initial work, and could fix those with almost zero overhead.
As soon as I added more use cases, especially with some config options and edge cases, I quickly saw where things were not working as expected.
But while getting those to run, I also saw if I broke the existing already working tests. Big help.

Once I got everything in a beta usable state, I pushed and published the repo.
After some documentation (!) in the README as well as Travis/Packagist enabling, I already composer required it in my Sandbox project and started to use it "for real".
When I got it all working in live mode, I felt convinced enough to release a 0.1 beta tag.

The cool thing that coveralls (or etc) told me then:
I got 95% code coverage out of the box without writing additional tests (I did write them parallel to the code as "pseudo app test frame").
Simply because when I wrote the plugin code and tests, I already tried the different options available, running into all possible code lines by design.

So now I added more features over the next 1-2 hours, released 2 more tags and after a few days it is now time for the official 1.0.0 release.

Here is my sandbox demo code for this plugin, by the way:

In parallel I started even a 2nd small plugin Markup, which took my only half the time even because now I was already quite fast in setting up the boilerplate stuff. Here I also tried to keep it extensible for use cases of future plugin users.

So overall I invested a few hours total to have two easily maintainable plugins that are open for extension, but by default suit my needs. Try it yourself, you will see that this way it really is not too hard to develop and publish such a plugin.

(Plugin) coding tips

If you develop a plugin for the first time, take a look at the existing ones listed in the awesome-cakephp list.
They might give you some insight in how things can look like. How we add a bootstrap for testing, how a Travis file looks like etc.

For test cases it also never hurts to take a look into the core test cases.

Plugin vs. core feature

This issue comes up every week basically. For me, beginning with CakePHP it was difficult to tell what should be covered by the core and what should stay as community plugin. I had this idea that every use case must be supported by the framework itself. Over time, it become more and more clear to me that a framework itself should stay lean and focus on the majority of the use cases and maybe provide a way to make it extensible for those edge case.

As a logical conclusion some of the CakePHP core functionality has been split off into it’s own repositories, like Acl, Migrations, Bake, Localized.
Not all of the users need those additional tools, in fact almost no one used Acl, and you only need Bake for development.

The positive side-effect here is that the iterations of these plugins can be independent from the core development, making feature development faster as there is no core release for the whole package necessary anymore.

Ask yourself the following questions:

  • Does the majority of devs need this functionality, and if so, this specific implementation of it?
  • Is it beneficial for both core and plugin to keep it standalone for maintenance and extendability reasons?

There will be more questions you can ask if you continue reading the next chapters about more generic principles.

Try to follow coding and package principles.

With CakePHP 3 we can finally adhere more correctly to some very basic coding principles. Most of you might know (or at least heard) about SOLID and Package Principles.
They following tips go into more detail what it means for our CakePHP plugins.

Coding principles (SOLID)

SOLID principles

The 5 well known SOLID principles can help us deciding how to best code our plugins and libraries.

Single responsibility principle (S)

Try to keep your classes simple and short, doing one specific task.
Take a look into my Geocoder behavior.
It does not actually geocode, because that is the task of a specific class. To avoid it doing too much, the behavior only wraps this Geocoder class and forwards calls to it. This way the only responsibility of this behavior is to help the model layer (usually a Table class) to geocode the entity data, while the single responsibility of the Geocoder class is to perform this geocoding task by talking to an API.
The additional advantage is that we can also use the library class as standalone, so we might want to provide a GeocodeShell, for which we most certainly don’t want to use behavior to encode a simple input string.

Open/closed principle (O)

Your code should be open for extension, but closed for modification. You will most likely never be able to guess and support all use cases for your code out of the box. Often times people will have come up with new ways to use your plugin.
So at the one side you do not want to have to change your code for every possible scenario. But if it was possible to support a lot of extensions out of the box, why not doing this?

If we are using dependencies in our classes, we do not want to rely on a specific class dependency, but an interface.
This might be not so important to you as plugin designer, but as soon as people use it, they might want to change maybe how a specific implementation of your dependency works.

Lets take a look at the [Slug plugin][( It shows how you can simply set a default for 'slugger' => 'Muffin\Slug\Slugger\CakeSlugger', but it would allow any other slugger implementing the SluggerInterface. Instead of providing and versioning all possible sluggers (and their potential dependencies) itself, it allows another package to contain a user-specific slugger
to use.

So always try to not contain specific switch statements or if/else blocks. Instead, always implement against a generic interface that allows for exchangeability. This is especially important for type-hinting constructors and methods.

Here, the implementing classes just need to provide a slug() method and it will work just fine even with some BinarySlugger 🙂

Liskov substitution principle (L)

Every subclass or derived class should be substitutable for their base/parent class. So make sure you make don’t widen the input/constructors, but keep them the same or narrow them.
You can always become more strict, but not less. Interfaces also help with that, as they make sure that at least those common methods have been provided.

Interface segregation principle (I)

If you create one interface containing too many different method stubs, often times you limit the possibilities of implementation.
Often times those classes can be grouped by API or Non-API, and in either of those cases need only a subset of the interface methods.
In this case it will most likely make sense to have two specific interfaces for each use case, this allows the sub-parts of your code to only rely on those relevant methods they care about.

Dependency inversion principle (D)

Ideally, we always enforce class dependencies via constructor argument commonly known as "Constructor Dependency Injection". When allowing to exchange the used class, we should respect that.

So in our case, we allow a closure to be passed into our plugin library class config:

$geocoderClass = $this->config('provider');
if (is_callable($geocoderClass)) {
	// Use the injected closure
	$this->geocoder = $geocoderClass();
// Manually create class
$this->geocoder = new $geocoderClass();

You never know if the class your plugin users want to use require some constructor dependencies on their own.
The DI principle should be possible for them to use, too, to fully respect the Open/Close Principle from above.

They can now have their own HTTP adapter passed into the Provider class:

$config = [
	'provider' => function () {
		return new \Geocoder\Provider\FreeGeoIp(new \Ivory\HttpAdapter\CakeHttpAdapter());
$this->Geocoder = new Geocoder($config);

As with the first principle, it is also important for DI that if you type-hint methods, class properties and alike, always try to use the Interface, not a concrete class.

Note that there is a second way to pass class dependencies usually referred to as "Setter Dependency Injection".
This should be avoided for required classes and only be used for optional parts, if any.

Package principles

Some of the 6 commonly known package principles can also be quite useful for our decisions.

Reuse-release equivalence principle – consider the scope

It is very much possible that whatever plugin you are going to write, the functionality itself could be interesting to other PHP applications.
With 2.x it was hard to provide it both ways, with 3.x this is now as easy as it gets.

A good example is Mark Story’s AssetCompress plugin.
Back in 2.x this was a full blown CakePHP-only dependency.
He realized that most of the code behind it could very well be useful to other PHP projects, though.
With CakePHP 3 it was finally possible to move the code into a standalone lib called MiniAsset.
All that was left of the plugin code was to function as a CakePHP bridge. This enables the actual library to be used by everyone whereas the framework users could use the plugin.
So also check your existing (plugin) code for this maybe.

Common-reuse principle (CRP)

Code that is used together, should be ideally in the same package. Micro-splitting each class into it’s own plugin might not always be wise. It also increases maintenance time/costs.

So if you have a Geocoder Library class talking to the API and a Geocoder Behavior using this Library to populate entities, you would always use them together, or just the library class.
Splitting them into own plugins does not sound feasible here, as the default case sees them used together.

Common-closure principle (CCP)

A package should not have more than one reason to change. So when you put too many different classes or even multiple different dependencies into a plugin/lib, you might have to major bump for each of those separately, creating a lot of annoyance for the users only using the unrelated part of code.
Bear that in mind when packaging. Packaging a lot together eases maintenance time/costs, however. So you need to find a good balance here (also regarding CRP principle) for the maintainer(s) as well as the package users.

Most probably know my Tools plugin, which was started way back in 2006 with SVN and no github/composer.
At that time it would have been super painful to support multiple plugins via SVN externals and no release/version locking really.
Thus one monolith class collection. Over the time, with GitHub and more people using it (not just me anymore), it became clear this approach is outdated and troublesome. Most of the time people use only a small subset and have to get all irrelevant class changes on top.
So with CakePHP 3 already becoming alpha/beta I started to split off some of the chunks that really deserve their own plugin namespace.
TinyAuth, Geo, Ajax, Rss and Shim have been created.
Now everyone using TinyAuth or Rss, for example, will most likely use all those classes together, while inside Tools it would have been 1% of all the rest.

I will further split out stuff in the future, wherever this makes sense regarding to these two first packaging principles. But it would also be impractical to have to maintain 150 new plugins for each small stand-alone class used somewhere at some point. So a good balance is the key again.

Package coupling (ADP, SDP, SAP)

  • Prevent cycling dependencies
  • Change is easiest when a package has not many dependencies (stable), so make sure if it does those are also not blocked for change.
  • Stable packages ideally have a lot of abstraction (interface, …) exposed to the depending parts so their stability does not prevent them from being extended.

Note that the term "stability"/"instability" isn’t evaluative. It simply refers to the dependencies of a package here.

A quote about stability of classes:

Typically, but not always, abstract classes and interfaces are not dependent on others and tend to be more stable as against concrete or implementation classes. This is because the abstract classes or interfaces typically represent the high level design and not the implementation, e.g, an interface called Logger will be more stable than classes FileLogger or DBLogger.

So in both cases (class vs package level) stability means something slightly different but in the end sums up to "less reasons to change".
By trying to create and use packages and classes in the direction of stability usually is the best approach and will keep necessary changes at the endpoint (usually your app) at a minimum, as well as for most parts (plugins) in between.


Don’t forget to release your code with tags following "semver".
You can start with 0.x and once you feel comfortable that it is fairly stable, release a 1.0.0.
New functionality usually goes into minor releases, bugfixes in patch-releases. A BC break warrants a major version jump.

Framework Semantic Versioning

With releasing plugins for a CakePHP version strict semver can be somewhat confusing, though (1.x/2.x here is for 3.x there, 3.x+ is for 4.x there, etc).
One more severe problem with that is that once you released a new 3.x framework compatible version you cannot major bump your 2.x code, as there is no number left in between. You have to break semver, or do some other workaround using composer-constraints. Some might even suggest to use a new repository for the 3.x compatible code etc.
Most of the time people are just afraid of major bumps and often use a minor one to introduce larger breaking changes.
It seems like here the design itself does not fit to the use case and misleads the maintainer to do bad things (talking from experience).
I think there is a better approach.

Something that could be considered "framework-semver" is the following approach I have seen occasionally so far:


  • x: CakePHP major version
  • y: Plugin major version
  • z: Plugin minor/patch version


  • 2.3.4: CakePHP 2.x, Plugin 3.x for this major, Minor/Patch v5
  • 3.1.0: CakePHP 3.x, Plugin 1.x for this major, First Minor

So the first number of both core and plugin matches.

In my book this makes it way more clear as the plugin itself cannot live without the CakePHP core dependency and at the same time has to be compliant to each of those different major versions.
So in all this makes more z bumps, and occasionally an y bump. But that is OK.
It also requires you to look the y version then "vendor-name/plugin-name": "1.2.*", as every y bump could break BC.

In theory you could also use a 4th digit, the actual patch version: x.y.z.patch, e.g. This would make it fully semver in itself again, but is usually not needed, as new functionality that is BC and bug fixes are both supposed to be z compliant (otherwise it would be major plugin version bump).
Either way it solves the issue of framework dependent plugins by design, and not by workarounds.

A smilar approach was already published here, but this is not composer friendly, and since all non major bumps should be BC, there should be no immediate need for a prefixing that includes the minor version of a framework.

Note: This is just some grounds for discussion so far. If you plan on using this you should really make it clear and documented it in bold visible in the README or something.
Because by default people will most likely assume you are following default "semver". Are there any downsides so far? I would really like to have some feedback here from the whole community.


Most people tend to forget that they release packages that are to be used in other peoples’ (proprietary) software. That means that they cannot legally use your code unless you specifically put a license in they know they can use. An MIT license is recommended and always works.
But that requires the file to be present in the root folder and/or in the files itself.
Just having a statement in the README usually does not suffice. Just something to look out for.
It would be sad if lots of projects/companies would like to use your plugin but cannot because of trivial license issues. Get it out of the way. You will benefit from more uses because of more feedback/contributions of them, as well.


One thing you should consider is regular maintenance for your plugins. Make sure CI (e.g. Travis) tests pass, that issues and PRs are taken care of in a reasonable time frame etc.
If that is too much to do, you can always ask for help and co-contributors, or even hand off the repo to someone else entirely.

Ready, set, …

Then take an idea and pluginize it.

You really want to start coding your own awesome plugin now but don’t have an idea? Look into the wiki of that very same repo from above. There you can find a lot of 2.x plugins that have not been upgraded yet. You could take care for any that interest you.
Or you go through your existing code and check those classes (helpers, behaviors, libs, …) for re-usability.
Also don’t forget to add your upgraded or new plugin to that list 🙂

Final notes

Some people might know DIP also as IOC (Inversion of Control).
Maybe also take a look at containerless-dependency-injection-for-services, a new article of @markstory about how most frameworks make their users potentially abuse DIC and
how better code your service classes.

Book Tips / Source Materials / Interesting Videos:

Developing CakePHP 3+ Plugins, it’s fun!
3 votes, 5.00 avg. rating (96% score)
1 Comment

Posted by Mark in CakePHP


Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

If you need to post a piece of code use {code type=php}...{/code}.
Allowed types are "php", "mysql", "html", "js", "css".

Please do not escape your post (leave all ", <, > and & as they are!). If you have encoded characters and need to reverse ("decode") it, you can do that here!

  1. Sam

    March 7, 2016 at 07:34

    Cake 3 is great fun, nearly pure joy. Coding always has twinges of frustration. Composer preventing installs can frustrating. I am having a play around with your meta plugin and some ideas I got stuck with in 2.x of old with current 2.x and 3.x. both great but 3.x is a joy.

    The console route checker foreinstance. Does cake3 handle the tasks of mcurrys url cache? I had a go at trying it within 3.x to no avail

    I guess some 2.x plugins are not required at all. Whereas others just require reworking. 3.x favours plugins. Some plugins might require extensive rejigging.

    I was pleased to see bash completion is witin and super simple to get going.

    I love to hear your thoughts on this..