Well put Jeff. I agree with your points. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 3, 2007 11:26 AM To: Michael Caplan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [fw-general] PEAR Channel Distro
Hello, I am glad to see ZF on a PEAR channel. However, I feel there are some advantages to distributing in micro packages versus a single macro package. Mostly, that distributing smaller packages forces an explicit enumeration of dependencies between packages. I believe the process of breaking the framework up into smaller PEAR packages will make the framework better by making dependencies more explicit and forcing people to think more about them. I also think that micro packages would help adoption. I can say that I would be more willing to use ZF components if I can first use and become familiar with a couple of the more independent packages without creating a huge dependency in my code on stuff that I am not using and don't necessarily understand. In other words, if I have to install the whole framework to use it in my application, I have more to understand and thus a higher barrier to using it. Additionally, I think a micro package release would boost the ecosystem around ZF as other PEAR channels and code bases can better integrate dependencies on ZF. Best Regards, Jeff On Feb 1, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Michael Caplan wrote: > If I am not off my rocker about not requiring the entire framework to > use individual components, wouldn't this open up the possibility for > individual component packages? My understanding of the PEAR package > format is that it support optional and required dependencies, > including > version dependencies. Wouldn't this feature shift "the responsibility > and effort of integrating different versions of different > components" to > the PEAR package system, resolving the stated concern about end > developer complications?
