I agree completely with you. I have disliked the pluralized directory paths since day one, and have felt bad for using my own structure partly due to not following the standards.
I couldn't agree any more with you on this statement. I am not a fan of the "Default Project" structure, and since hearing someone claim it should be changed to a "Sample Project" structure, I no longer feel I am taking an incorrect path ( as a seasoned developer ). don-87 wrote: > > Is there any reason why the dirs are pluralized? > And one is not (config)? > > And the most important question: > What is a "default" project structure good for? > > I mean: Do you all work on the same application or you all write an > all-purpose cms or application framework based on ZF? > I think the main purpose to organize your classes and files in an > application is depending on your own needs, the type of software you > write, the context, the domain you are working on and NOT the fixed > structure of any (external) framework, isn't it? > What if I want to change my infrastructure or framework, do I have to > rename all my classes and reorganize all dirs? Or I want to move away > from MVC, does my application collapse then? > > This proposal could be valid for a "sample project using MVC" but not > for a default ZF project, the latter doesn't exist. > > It's ok to give some tips and hints for beginners how one CAN structure > a sample MVC (not default!) project but it should NOT be official, > because there is no "default" project, I never heard of an "default" > application being built with a specific (mvc) framework. > Aside from using convention over configuration like with RoR..... > > Sorry for being some kind of rude on this but I always have problems > with frameworks/technologies trying to give me any kind of allegations > or constraints on how I have to design my software. > > > > Matthew Weier O'Phinney schrieb: >> -- Ralf Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> (on Friday, 12 September 2008, 07:25 PM +0200): >>> I am highly interested in the current status of the "Default Project >>> Structure Component Proposal". In June the proposal was approved for >>> incubator development. >>> >>> http://framework.zend.com/wiki/x/6KM >>> >>> Is there any news? >> >> The version currently posted is the version we've accepted and which >> Ralph is using as his target for Zend_Tool. >> >> I saw your comment come through. We'd prefer not to have two separate >> directory layouts. The reason is that a site may grow organically, and >> at first need simply a single controller directory. As the sites needs >> grow, the developer should not need to refactor; adding a modules >> directory to application/ is a simple step and already supported by the >> front controller and dispatcher. >> > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Status-of-Default-Project-Structure-Component-Proposal-tp19460597p19471519.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
