Hi *nameless* :) We definitely appreciate the feedback. The whole team (and I believe many of the contributors) spend time reviewing the blogs, issue tracker and other ways we are getting feedback. All of this very helpful as we move forward in building out ZF.
Happy holidays, Andi > -----Original Message----- > From: PotatoBob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:25 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [fw-general] One person's opinion... > > > *nabble may have formatted the previous message* > NOTE: I am just giving my opinion (biased of course) and hopefully some > constructive criticism. This is because I believe that a project should > have > those who criticize it rather than a complete loyal fan base because > criticism does bring about improvement does it not? > > First of all, ZF has made a lot of progress since last year and I am > very > happy about the way it turned out. It does seem like there was a real > rush > to push 1.0 out the door considering RC2, RC3 and 1.0 were all released > in a > one month period (RC3 to 1.0 was a little over a week if I remember). > While > I do realize that fact that this is a project geared towards enterprise > customers as they do pay the bills :thinking:, I do hope that the > target now > is to fix up some nasty areas and concentrate a little bit more on > developer > friendliness. Of course, there should still be a balance between what > you > call "rapid development features" vs "code design". While I am very pro > "code design" rather than using "rapid development tactics" such as > placing > a commonly functions everywhere, I do think that a many people were > hoping > for a rails-type feel and a little bit doesn't hurt. > > Now that I got that out of the way. There are some things that I feel > that > ZF is lacking, hopefully everyone realizes it already. Zend_Cache at > the > moment doesn't feel very "up to par" as I saw a few areas that could be > improved such as the removal of the constructor array params checking > which > is inconsistent with other designs such as in Zend_Db. Another wierd > thing > question I've got to ask is "Why are the backends and frontends > hardcoded?". > On top of that, being able to provide default configuration for > backends/frontends would be nice. Well that is one component, other > components I feel that were lacking love in were Zend_Translate, > Zend_Date > and Zend_Mail could use a getDefaultTransport function to be able to > use the > default transport when sending multiple mails, but that could be > debatable. > One thing that I thought was wierd was this > http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-2314 (Thought I'd throw this > in > hoping Matthew would explain ;) ). Obviously I have too much to rant > about, > so I'll end it about here and keep you guys from getting bored of > reading. > > Wishlist: > Abstraction of the Bootstrap process > I do have an attempt at this, although it sounds like you are > heading > towards code generation... > (http://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/zftalk/SpotSec_Application) > > Zend_Log_Writer_Syslog > > Fix up Zend_Cache quality > > Fix wierdness in a few areas of Zend_Db > > Ralph, Fix the Zend_Auth_Adapter_DbTable and the object FETCH_MODE bug > Don't make me nag you on #zftalk ;) > Model Loading? > > Zend_Acl and Zend_Auth pattern > This seems to be confusing as to a "good" design for many people > > Zend_View_Helper_BaseUrl > (returns baseurl) Ok this is kinda on the lazy side, but it > does > reduce a lot of typing ;) > > That being said, I am looking forward to the future and have followed > the > progress of Zend_Layout and Zend_Form since the beginning; however, I > do > hope that some of your attention is diverted to the cracks in ZF before > your > next release. > > End of ridiculous rant, SpotSec > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/One-person%27s- > opinion...-tp14476650s16154p14476668.html > Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
