I suggest we simply start by rolling out functionality that already exists
in the framework (adapters and such), and then roll out new features from
there, things that don't even exist in the framework itself, like an acl
with db.
Jason
On May 12, 2009 2:14pm, Josh Team <[email protected]> wrote:
I personally think we are putting the horse before the cart. This
doesn't have to be one huge project.. If we have any type of review
processes, which we will in being an Open Source community, we can
break down the project into smaller independent integration points.
(eg Zend Acl w/ Doctrine - Doctrine CRUD Plug & Play Module -
Zend_Search w/ Doctrine Plugin Listener - Etc) we use Assembla or some
other free Open Source site to allow a wiki / ticket creation and let
whoever wants to jump on the different teams and help. So we as a
community work on the overall project, but the projects are agnostic
to each other.. once we have the building blocks we can all see the
best way to package it together. Roles will become self evident in
each project as certain people will champion certain things naturally.
Just my $.02
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Ralph Schindler
[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, this is more or less what you'd need to implement.
>
> Off the top of your head, can you think of what "development time" tasks
> should be exposed? What will the tool be doing for the developer?
>
> -ralph
>
> Matthew Lurz wrote:
>>
>> I think a Zend Tool Project Provider is what I may be looking for
instead.
>>
>>
>> Matthew Lurz wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Josh. I hadn't thought of those and that's exactly the kind of
>>> input needed to get a handle on the potential scope.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Team wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm an avid user of both ZF and Doctrine. Time is short on my end but
>>>> I can help here and there. Two things I've done with ZF & Doctrine is
>>>> merge Doctrine with Lucene Search w/ Doctrine listeners that update
>>>> the index on save/insert/delete. I've also merged Doctrine with
>>>> Zend_Amf to allow remoting to interact right with the ORM layer.
There
>>>> are a lot of other possible touch points like, Zend_Navigation -
>>>> Zend_Acl - etc.. where we could merge the two frameworks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Matthew Lurz [email protected]>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Jason!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly others, such as yourself, have exerted more effort than I in
>>>>> creating proposals, etc. I only hope to help in whatever way
possible.
>>>>> Feel
>>>>> free to interject, but a tentative plan to move forward might look
>>>>> something
>>>>> like:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Gather momentum and get a few dedicated people on board
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Analyze/review potential integration points and agree on the
initial
>>>>> scope of the library
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Gather/modify/normalize existing/proposed components
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Implement additional components within the initial scope
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) Provide a roadmap for enhancements taking into consideration
changes
>>>>> to
>>>>> the ZF and Doctrine
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm assuming that you've gone through the process of signing the
CLA,
>>>>> etc? I
>>>>> have not and so would need to review this information and go through
>>>>> the
>>>>> necessary process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. Let me know if you have any other
>>>>> recommendations, ideas, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jasone wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am able, and have the time, to do this. I authored two of those
>>>>>> proposals. Been waiting on the zend team :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Or now that I look, maybe they're not moved to "ready for review"
>>>>>> yet?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 2009 6:16pm, Matthew Lurz [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> !!! Calling All Doctrine/ZF Users !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While the ZF wiki contains several Doctrine related proposals,
there
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> seem to exist a cohesive movement toward tying together these 2
>>>>>>> excellent
>>>>>>> pieces of software. With the benefits of doing so being so great,
>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>> band
>>>>>>> together for this purpose!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are a potential recipient of these benefits, would you be
>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> using or contributing to the development of such an integration
>>>>>>> library?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, read on and reply..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A brief survey of potential integration points (1) turned up:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZendX_Doctrine_Application_Resource_Manager (2)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZendX_Doctrine_Tool_Framework_Client
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZendX_Doctrine_Log_Writer_Table
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZendX_Doctrine_Session_SaveHandler_Table
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZendX_Doctrine_Auth_Adapter_Table (3)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZendX_Doctrine_Paginator_Adapter_Collection (3)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZendX_Doctrine_CodeGenerator_Form (3)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn't my intent to define scope or vision, but the general
intent
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>> should be somewhat self-evident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Integration points moving in the other direction exist as well.
I've
>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> evaluate these relationships, but one possibility is Doctrine
event
>>>>>>> listeners
>>>>>>> using Zend_Log for profiling, debugging, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have I missed any potential integration points? Any other
comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) ZendX_Doctrine is the proposed namespace
>>>>>>> 2) I have some very basic, working code if anyone is interested
>>>>>>> 3) Proposal exists on ZF wiki
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>
http://www.nabble.com/RFC%3A-ZendX_Doctrine-tp23454552p23454552.html
>>>>>>> Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/RFC%3A-ZendX_Doctrine-tp23454552p23455034.html
>>>>> Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
