Ok, I'll bite.
There's plenty of interest. The issue right now is getting a stable and
tested version of ZF out the door that developers can rely on. We are in
RC status, which means, loosely, no new features, and bugfixes/security
fixes only. (I say loosely, as there have been a few new features
creeping in, but most have been backwards compatible or augment existing
functionality.)
RC3 wasnt BC to RC2. And RC1 introduced a massive new feature (the view
renderer) which we needed to address it's implications. Somehow the
viewrenderer was ok to add in an RC but the response to it isn't? Thats
bogus.
To give an idea of what I mean by "getting a stable and tested version
of ZF out the door," I personally addressed over 30 issues in the
tracker between RC2 and RC3. There are still a few lingering issues and
a few classes that need better test coverage. But if we add new features
such as layout and partials support *now*, that means pushing the date
back.
Zend_Layout can be applied to the SVN today, in its current form, without
breaking ANY b/c (it patches right in) and without modifying the dates. It
has been working for weeks.
Some may ask, why not push the date back and get *all* the features in?
Simple: when do we decide we have all the features? when does the API
freeze? There's a really great article about time-based release
management versus "release when ready":
Why was there no list of goals to make a 1.0. Why was 1.0 a date not a level
of completeness. People are waiting for the framework to be complete, not
labeled with a version number.
If it were up to me ZFW 1.0 would have layouts, Zend_Form, and probably a
more unified set of APIs for Zend_Request/Response and the differences
between fetchAll in Zend_Db_Table and with Zend_Db_Select fixed and
standardized such that the result of fetching is always the same (one
returns an object with properties another an array now)
Slapping a 1.0 label on it doesnt make the framework any more done.
What it comes down to is: a lot of developers are waiting to use ZF
until it has its first stable release, and continuing to push that off
into the future will only delay ZF uptake -- and thus contributions to
the project.
If you release too early (which many of think this is) you risk setting the
reputation of the framework [never get a second chance to make a first
impression]. As-is, while it's excellent, it's going to get bad reviews for
a lot of legitimate but easily resolved reasons.
There is definitely room for new features and polishing -- that's why
there *will* be life after 1.0. Stay tuned after the release -- there
are plenty of proposals and ideas just waiting in the wings for after
this milestone.
What this says to me is that 1.0 just means what 0.8 and 0.9 meant. No
stable release.
What hasn't been fully considered is that printed documentation will be
written for 1.0, tutorials generated and they will all use a workflow many
of us find less than ideal. Where they use two-step, it will be either an
unofficial solution (layout, view-enhanced) or the exceedingly complex
custom-plugin approach.
This will set the learning on framework in a header.tpl/footer.tpl
non-two-step standard with no realistic solution for form building [the most
common action for any web app].
I don't mean to sound critical (I'm a big FW proponent), but there's a lot
of us who don't agree with the current course. It would be painless to add
layout, it would be even better to fix the other 4-5 big issues before we
set the API in stone.
$0.02
K
Pádraic Brady wrote:
or this...lol
http://svn.astrumfutura.org/zendframework/trunk/library/Proposed/Zend/View/
Helper/Partial.php
Never have so many heads bumped the same wall...;). I do think
cross-module
partials are useful. The problem doing it is configuring a new View
assuming it has no interaction with a controller. The ViewRenderer
would
likely work though it's lodged in the Controller.
Pádraic Brady
http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.patternsforphp.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Ralph Schindler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 10:54:11 PM
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Two-Step View, subclassing controller, etc
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>
> Partials have been on my to-do list for a while now. They actually
don't
> require any changes on the view level; you can very simply create a
new
> View object in the helper, setup the environment from the old view
> object (minus the variables), assign variables as passed, and then
> render the "partial" view. I just need to write good test cases for
> them, and determine the syntax for pulling them.
You mean like this: ;)
http://svn.ralphschindler.com/repo/Xend/library/Xend/Layout/ViewHelper/
Partial.php
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security
of
spyware protection.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
PHP Developer | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zend - The PHP Company | http://www.zend.com/
