Really good response - thank you. I like Cake and see myself using it for the long haul. I am aware that you only get out what you put in. I want to contribute but - like a lot of other people (I guess) I am still in the naive wide-eyed looking up to the experts stage, so am taking more than I can give. Honestly I didn't even know (care?) that Mozilla used it. I just don't want to adopt something that becomes far inferior to other frameworks due to starvation or a lack or attention. If that is not the case, then great. It makes you think, a bit, when a large corporation like Mozilla take a strategic decision to move away from what you have adopted. I don't want to regret my choice. It's a good choice now, I want it to stay that way. Don't let me be the guy wandering the streets in flares and long sideburns thinking I am still cool!
On Nov 18, 8:09 am, Martin Westin <[email protected]> wrote: > A lot of their reasoning is solid but part of it sound like classic > 1.1 issues. They note some of it in their google spreadsheet. > > Reading partly between the lines it sounds like they don't like > Simpletest, the cake shell and php4 limitations (=ORM with array- > data). With that one has to understand that they compare Cake's > roadmap with other frameworks and feel that they will be better served > by a framework with, for example, object-based ORM today and not at > some point in the future. > > @jburns, @Okto > I have been building stuff with CakePHP for almost 4 years (on and > off) and I can still recognize the worry you guys express. "Will Cake > survive?", "Is everyone abandoning the sinking ship?" and thoughts > like that can easily crop up when you hear things like this. Back in > 2006 the question was wether a "rails ripoff" could survive at all... > Cake is still here among numerous "competitors" more or less inspired > by Rails. > > Just remember... The Mozilla team are not (afaik) the driving force > behind CakePHP. They have been big users and probably quite big > contributors. They have provided a real-world showcase and test-case > for big deployments that have probably helped find optimization > bottlenecks and things like that. > > Also, in relation to the whole li3 thing, the last time CakePHP had a > "big crisis" (core members disagreeing in public in early 2008 I > believe) it ended up kickstarting the final push towards 1.2 stable. > Mark really started to make himself known as THE driving force behind > a lot of the work and improvements and bug fixes sped up. > > CakePHP is like any open project... some people leave as others join > and the fate of the framework is up to you guys, me and anyone who > cares to make any contributions they can to it. You can and certainly > should consider other frameworks, that is just good sense. But you > hopefully chose Cake for a reason and I hope that reason was not that > Mozilla used it :) > > Also, a lot of what you learn now will translate quite well to other > frameworks. > > /Martin > > On Nov 18, 5:07 am, Okto Silaban <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Maybe some of you haven't heard about this.. > > > Just FYI, AMO (addons.mozilla.org) now still using cakephp 1.1. But > > they've planned to migrate to Django. > > > Link :http://micropipes.com/blog/2009/11/17/amo-development-changes-in-2010/ > > > labanux,http://okto.silaban.net -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" 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=.
