Hi Matt, Thanks for your interest.
Overall I've been unable to drum up a lot of community involvement but that's to be expected at this stage I think. In the meantime, I have submitted a few proposals, but an focusing on the resource plugin proposal. I'd really like to get other developers on board. I have some working code here, http://github.com/mlurz71 The proposal for the resource plugin is here: http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFPROP/Zend_Application_Resource_Doctrine+-+Matthew+Lurz Let me know if you have time and want to contribute. Thanks again!! Matthew Ratzloff wrote: > > What is the current status of this? > -Matt > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Lurz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I agree, with both of you :) I don't think we need to swallow the project >> whole or cultivate an overarching bureaucracy since the ZF team provides >> the >> necessary tooling, processes, etc >> >> At the same time, I think that a small group of us could put out a >> substantial chunk and that the quality of that chunk should be greater >> than >> it would be if we were to work separately. Also, assuming that a good >> proposal is easier to get through than a poor one, we can leverage some >> teamwork to ensure that we submit the best proposals possible. >> >> Here are my recommendations for those initial components which I believe >> represents the components necessary to swap out Zend_Db with Doctrine: >> >> - ZendX_Doctrine_Application_Resource_DoctrineManager >> - ZendX_Doctrine_Tool_Framework_Project_DoctrineCliProvider >> - ZendX_Doctrine_Log_Writer_Table >> - ZendX_Doctrine_Session_SaveHandler_Table >> - ZendX_Doctrine_Auth_Adapter_Table >> - ZendX_Doctrine_Paginator_Adapter_Collection >> >> Jason has already submitted proposals for Auth_Adapter_Table and >> Paginator_Adapter_Collection have proposals in the works. Please review >> these if you haven't already. >> >> Tomek Pęszor has started working on Session_SaveHandler_Table and >> Application_Resource_DoctrineManager. Please review his implementations >> here: >> >> http://wiki.github.com/taat/myzend >> http://github.com/taat/myzend/tree/doctrine >> >> This leaves - ZendX_Doctrine_Tool_Framework_Project_DoctrineCliProvider >> and >> ZendX_Doctrine_Log_Writer_Table. Zend_Tool looks daunting but I hope >> Ralph >> will be able to offer some guidance. Any takers? I'd be more than happy >> to >> work on either, or both if necessary. >> >> Here is a list of additional, potential components that have been noted >> thus >> far: >> >> ZendX_Doctrine_CodeGenerator_Form and/or some Form Generator and/or >> Form/Model integration >> >> Doctrine event listeners? .. debug, log, test? >> >> Doctrine with Lucene Search w/ Doctrine listeners that update the index >> on >> save/insert/delete >> >> Doctrine with Zend_Amf to allow direct remoting to the model layer >> >> Any others? >> >> >> Jasone wrote: >> > >> > 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. >> > >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >>>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/RFC%3A-ZendX_Doctrine-tp23454552p23512561.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-tp23454552p25456274.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
