Will, One of the things I love about Zend Framework is that it is loosely coupled. Anything that encourages less inter-dependency amongst components (except where it makes sense) is certainly a good thing. I can definitely see the marketing benefit as well. As long as I have the option to keep getting my Zend Framework fix in one whole piece I'm happy ;-)
Thanks, Bradley On Feb 5, 2008 2:06 PM, Wil Sinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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]> 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]> wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2008 3:57 PM, Richard Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] > -- Bradley Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
