I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'test suite', or- more precisely- that doesn't sound like what I think of when I hear the phrase 'test suite'. :) Do you have a URL that I could take a look at with the tests you mention?
,Wil > -----Original Message----- > From: Federico Cargnelutti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [fw-general] ZF Proposal Process and Packaging. . . > > I think it's a great idea. It will get more developers involved and > offer > more solutions to the users. > > Here is another idea. I did a little experiment last year and created a > test > suite in order to get other developers interested in the ZF. I added > around > 8 test cases, each test had its own page, and each page had a div with > 2 > tabs, "example" and "source code". It was a huge success. > > I think this is something very important that's actually missing in the > website. It would be nice to see Reference Guide - APIs - Videos and > Test > Suite. IMO code is the best documentation, it helps users understand > what a > component does and how it works straight away, and of course, they get > to > see real examples. > > Fed > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wil Sinclair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Logan Buesching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "till" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 7:28 PM > Subject: RE: [fw-general] ZF Proposal Process and Packaging. . . > > > 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.
