-- jkush1121 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Saturday, 13 September 2008, 08:14 AM -0700): > 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.
If you've felt bad about them "since day one," why didn't you comment on the proposal, or in the discussions on-list? (not trying to be pissy here, but if you don't raise your voice, then you can't complain later) That said, this is the *recommended* structure -- that does not mean that you *must* follow it. In fact, we have left flexibility in the system to allow it to adapt to *your* structures. > 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. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Software Architect | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/
