I think your idea has merit, and many of us would like to see a cake EAR, however... I think cake may not be ready for such a thing.
1. With all of the new stuff planned for cake 2.0, I think the core developers are probably too busy to manage something of this scale (even if they wanted too). 2. Cake has no specific coding structures, and has no methods for specifying dependencies and interaction between plugins (that I know of). But that doesn't mean someone (like you) couldn't run a cake EAR if the cake community thought it would be useful. That said, I don't think the purpose should be to restrict plugins too one of each type, but to certify that the plugins meet certain standards (clean code, tested, user documentation, code documentation, etc). I don't think that any "one" "blog" plugin will suit the needs of all cake developers. cook On Mar 14, 6:39 am, "adi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My proposal is not for something that would be part of the Cake core > but rather a structured repository for add-ons. > > If the repository is well structured and organized users can easily > download add-ons and just plug them into the cake framework. The > installed add-ons will know what other add-ons are required to be > installed, maybe even auto-magically install them, and provide hooks > and call backs for other add-ons to use. > > In the end the repository should have a nice collection of usefull add- > ons such as a blog, gallery, homepage, theme-manager, news-manager, > links manager etc. All the stuff that you find in most CMS systems. > > When the user wants to build a site they simply install the modules > they need and voila, they all integrate nicely and co-exist > beautifully. > > There's no search through endless lists of code snippets etc on > cakeforge. There is only one Blog add-on and it has been co-developed > by a bunch of contributors and certified by the Cake Repository Admins > (I.e. It is well coded and plays nice with all the other add-ons). If > there is a feature that someone thinks it needs they can develop it > and submit the changes to be added to the next release. > > On Mar 14, 10:46 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I had a very similar idea a while > > agohttp://groups.google.com/group/cake-php/browse_thread/thread/555531e7... > > My idea never made it though (phpnut found it too application specific > > to be put in the framework) > > > On Mar 14, 8:58 am, "adi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > This is my first post here and I must confess I am somewhat of a Cake > > > newbie. I am however an experienced PHP developer, and web-designer. I > > > have spent many years dabbling in a number of CMS systems from Nuke to > > > CPG-Nuke to Joomla to Xoops to Drupal. > > > > They all have their various pro's and con's (some more con's than > > > pro's) but I think very few are easy to implement and customize > > > without a huge learning curve. > > > > I must say I was very excited when I came across the cake framework as > > > I have spent some time working in ASP.NET and really liked Ruby on > > > Rails but was reluctant to try and learn ANOTHER language just to > > > derive the benefit of an MVC architecture on an Open Source platform. > > > > The Cake Software Foundation is obviously a dedicated group of > > > developers and by and large I think the cake project is managed and > > > presented very professionally and indeed very well. I think it is > > > porabably obvious to all of us that cake provides the tools to build > > > some very exciting (I'm tempted to say Web 2.0 but I'm not a big fan > > > of buzz-words) web-based apps. That said I think Cake has a huge > > > amount of untapped potential. > > > > This brings me to my proposal. I'm sure many of you are familiar with > > > PEAR. The PHP Extension and Application repository. Essentially a > > > structured and managed repository of PHP scripts designed to fulfill > > > everyday tasks. The code is all written according to strict > > > conventions and all extensions are part of an extensive hierarchy of > > > dependencies. > > > > You may say that Cake has the CakeForge. I disagree. CakeForge serves > > > it's purpose as a meeting place for Cake Developers to share ideas and > > > code snippets. It also hosts cake based projects and initially I would > > > anticipate the Cake EAR being hosted on Cake Forge. What the EAR would > > > have that Cake Forge does not is a strict dependency map/hierarchy. In > > > other words if I develop a Blogging extension that requires the User > > > Managment extension this dependency is explicitly specified. > > > > In the same way as PEAR has extended the PHP language the Cake EAR > > > would do the same for Cake. It would be structure and controlled. In > > > this way we prevent repetition and confusion. Why should developers > > > scour through CakeForge picking and choosing between 5 different > > > components that do the same thing when they would be better served > > > accessing the the Cake EAR finding the single extension that they > > > require. They can then rest assured that this extension has been co- > > > developed and refined by a number of developers and coded according to > > > the strict coding conventions and best practices as specified by the > > > Cake EAR requirements. > > > > Each extension will be, essentially, a separate project. Bugs and > > > Feature requests will be addressed as they arise and contributions > > > will be incorporated into the code as they are presented. > > > > At the end of the day Cake has the potential to be RAD developers > > > great weapon and we can't expect all the features that every website > > > would like (Blog, User management, Gallery etc) to be bundled into the > > > core of Cake so why not have easily pluggable, well documented and > > > reliable extensions stored in a well organized structured repository > > > with a finite dependency hierarchy and a clear development road map? > > > > Obviously it is early days and I wanted to really feel the waters > > > first and see if anyone is interested in joining me on my quest to > > > establish a strong Cake EAR. If you've read this far you must have > > > some opinion on the matter... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cake PHP" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
