I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any framework that anybody would really care about is extensible and will support extensions in different locations. And +1 to the thing about adopting standards wherever feasible. ----- Cameron Eagans Owner, Black Storms Studios, LLC http://www.blackstormsstudios.com
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Daniel F. Kudwien <[email protected]>wrote: > > "we'll be involved in developing such standards and will > > adopt them wherever feasible, but we do not commit to > > following all standards if they are incompatible with > > Drupal's basic architecture." > > > > --Larry Garfield > > +1 Yes, that makes sense. I think it is what we (sometimes silently) did > anyway. Some of our standards are self-made (for good reason), but there > are also a couple that were directly derived from example code snippets on > php.net's documentation pages. In some cases, when there was no > consistent > standard on php.net, we even asked them for the proper standard and to fix > their docs. > > I'm not quite sure how they can ignore an architecture like Drupal. I'm > not > sure whether I know of a PHP framework/CMS that is NOT extensible and > doesn't support extensions to be placed in various locations, and therefore > wouldn't support this strict filepath based namespacing. > > Thanks for staying involved, Crell! > > sun > >
