Wil,
I'll play devils advocate here.
First, before everything else one must consider deployment, packaging
and installed base. One of the great failures with PDO, and possibly one
of its successes, was with its separate driver architecture.
Practically, splitting it makes sense, pragmatically however, it has
lead to serious configuration headaches for a lot of users.
Zend Framework is the same, and your predecessors have expressed the
importance in making sure that when a hosting package is selected that
says 'Zend Framework v 1.X' it means all of it -- not a mix of
components that will have to be detected at runtime.
Worse, we could end up with independently versioned components aside
from the core. Applications dependent on framework will then have to
made even more intelligent, and deployment complexity increases
significantly.
I would point you to review the archives here, as versioning and
optional components have been discussed at length before.
There is something very powerful about Zend's currently unified
deployment architecture.
Kevin
Wil Sinclair wrote:
I generally like mootools’ and other JS libraries simplistic
dependency model (AFAIC tell, the core lib is the only dependency
allowed, so a general-purpose packaging system with tracking across
full dependency graphs is not necessary). If we were to start
distributing parts of ZF in a piecemeal fashion, I think that we would
also see great benefit from a few basic rules aimed at drastically
simplifying dependency management. While there is no immediate and
significant runtime advantage that I can see here, we are interested
in- and have been discussing- distributing at least one ‘lean and
mean’ archive. There are several reasons for this, including lower
load on our servers and- taking off my perfectly logical developer hat
and putting on a more realistic marketing hat ;)- the fact that many
developers and reviewers consider distribution size to be an important
dimension on which to judge a framework. I don’t necessarily think
that distribution size is a good indication of anything for a
server-side framework beyond what you **can’t** expect to be included,
such as sizable locale files which are very useful to our many
international users but that add a MB or two to the current
distribution of ZF (Thomas has done an excellent job getting these as
small as possible while maintaining everything that makes them so
useful in the first place), but I do think that the ‘download only
what you need’ distribution mechanism is both technically and
philosophically compatible with ZF in its current state. We’ll
probably be talking about this more once 1.5 is out the door.
,Wil
*From:* Bradley Holt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:04 AM
*To:* Elliot Anderson
*Cc:* Simone Carletti; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [fw-general] ZF Packaging
Elliot,
The main reason that mootools does this, in my understanding, is so
that it can give you one JavaScript file to be included in your web
page with only the components you need. There are performance
advantages to this since you are only requiring the user's browser to
get the JavaScript components it will need, not all of mootols. With
Zend Framework, there is no performance advantage to only installing a
handful of components. My understanding is that the performance hit
comes when you require or include the component, not from it simply
sitting on your web server. In other words, the main advantage of the
pick-what-you-want download system doesn't apply when it comes to Zend
Framework. The only advantage I can see is storage space, but have
there been any complaints about that with Zend Framework?
Thanks,
Bradley
On Feb 5, 2008 6:26 AM, Elliot Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I'm a fan of the pick-what-you-want download system that Moo Tools has.
http://mootools.net/download
On Jan 29, 2008 6:04 AM, Simone Carletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 3:57 PM, Richard Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
zfdev.com <http://zfdev.com> is a community supported project that
never really took off,
It was never an "official" repository though.
Sorry Richard,
my misunderstanding. :)
Thanks for pointing it out.
Simone
--
Bradley Holt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
