And that's exactly the intention- to support development of components that are 'Zend Framework' components but that we can't support. What makes a component a 'Zend Framework' component? Well, sitting alongside ZF code in the library, using ZF coding standings, and having dependencies on other framework components is certainly a good start. But I would argue that more important than any one of those factors is the assurance of quality that comes from unit test coverage and design review from the Zend Framework community. This assurance is something we definitely want to bring to extras as well, so the intention is not to allow a components of lower quality, rather to allow components that we can distribute while not supporting them.
,Wil > -----Original Message----- > From: Logan Buesching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 9:34 AM > To: till > Cc: Wil Sinclair; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [fw-general] ZF Proposal Process and Packaging. . . > > Hello, > > Although I'm not sure how much my 2 cents weigh, I would like to say > that I would really enjoy this feature. > > till wrote: > > In general people look at the Zend Framework because they want > > well-tested code. Code which is free to use (in regard to license) > > etc.. I think support is another issue which people kind of expect > > from you when they download of the zend.com domain. Now if only > > everything but extras is qualified to meet the standards you set upon > > yourself, the rest should be dropped all together. It's messy > > otherwise. > > > I do agree that when people see Zend, and especially the Zend > Framework, > they believe that it is quality code. This is why they are suggesting > that code in 'extras' meet their own requirements (or at least most of > them), but Zend themselves cannot support due to it's size. I look at > this the same way that many Linux distributions have 'official' > packages > that they support, then they have extras that are in the repository, > but > they don't support (as in Ubuntu and Universal). I think that it is a > wonderful idea, because it allows us developers to get a lot more > features that will most likely be pretty well tested, but maybe not > pristine. > > I would think that extending the Zend Framework would be a hassle if > there is no way for the community to distribute their own contributions > through the help of Zend.
