I *think* what he's talking about is live examples with viewable source code
wllm wrote: > > 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. > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ZF-Proposal-Process-and-Packaging.-.-.-tp14956236s16154p14975288.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
