On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/14/2010 12:05 AM, Mike A wrote: > >> On 13/07/2010 22:44, Jonathon Suggs wrote: >> >>> Would the community find benefit in having a repository of commonly >>> used models/entities? >>> >>> The classes would all just be plain php classes with Doctrine2 >>> annotations (and unit tests). I understand that use cases will vary >>> between projects but the classes could always be extended and >>> overridden. >>> >>> Subsequently, the classes could be used to create pluggable modules. >>> I'm thinking that it would be a nice feature for the framework to be >>> able to add in a blog or forum (or whatever) module that could be part >>> of your codebase, but without requiring too much developer >>> customizations (unless wanted). >>> >>> I realize this is somewhat of a vague and ambitious request, but if >>> there is interest I'd like to get some ideas for defining requirements >>> and use cases. I guess my only two initial requirements/constraints >>> are Zend Framework (target ZF2) and Doctrine2. I also would expect >>> for the development to happen outside of the official project but >>> would (obviously) work closely with all projects involved. >>> >>> >> I am writing a ZF book named ModJewelz at the moment. An ongoing work it >> will eventually become a huge reference. The idea of it is not only to act >> as a guide to building modular ZF systems but as a reference for modules, >> plugins and helpers built, tested and available in a central repository >> after being subjected to scrutiny by the community. To give an idea about >> the depth of reference, the chapter on building a common foundation template >> as a basis for modular systems already runs to about 70 pages. >> >> So yes, I think the idea is good, but only for tested components capable >> of interfacing with common templates. Otherwise the repository could become >> saturated and obfusated by poorly written components - as with other CMS and >> frameworks. >> >> Sounds like a great book, but I do not see why we have to have to put > limitations on it. The community can filter these components on their own. > As long as users can rate the components you can let the people choose what > they want. >
I think it as Larry Wall who said something about there being a law that holds that 90% of everything is crap. Talking about CPAN, he goes on to say that CPAN is so huge -- 18,000 modules at this point -- that the other 10% of non-crap is quite a significant amount of quality code. Seems like a middle course would be prudent: exercise a degree of quality control, but without becoming too obsessive or exclusive about it. -- Support real health care reform: http://phimg.org/ -- David Mintz http://davidmintz.org/
