> sounds interesting. We already started discussing a "framework" > component a longer time ago in eZ Components. This component was meant > to provide integration for the components, like scaffolding scripts. > Having a complete framework on basis of Zeta would be a step in a > similar direction.
if you ask me, ZC is very good because you know what it is. Looking at f. e. Cocoon which has way to much faces i always felt it does to much. However, if you like the framework - we are willing to let people in. One of our drawbacks is that we are a small team :-) On the other hand, PIWI does to much - f. e. we have implemented a small DI container. Its pretty easy and fine, but basically it would fit more at ZC than in a webframework. A webframework should only provide classes which are necessary for webworking. If there is no DI container in ZC, Piwi could contribute such a component to ZC >> OK would like to hear you opinions on the prefix change. > > We discussed this issue before actually proposing Zeta to the ASF in the > round which is the PMC today. I can fully understand your arguments in > favor of a class prefix change. However, we decided against. Of course, > if the community desires it, we can have a vote again on this issue, but > I doubt any of the PMCs will vote for a change. Thats not a problem, justed wanted to know what the status is. I wanted to avoid to start with efford and then break everything up because of class prefix change. > However, I don't see it the last chance to make a change. One day, we > will be in the need of releasing 2.0 versions of our components and I > don't see this step too far away (maybe a year?), since PHP 5.3 > establishes more and more. With this step, we can switch directly from a > class prefix to namespaces, which would actually render this change > superfluous. +1 Thanks for the info! Christian
