On 2/10/06, Doug Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just want to back Joe up on this. He and I have had long conversations > about this topic. For the most part, I agree with him.
At the risk of adding a "me too!" voice, I'll back both Joe and Doug up here. This has been a continual problem with Mach II as well - and I'm now seeing it with Fusebox as I build out release 5. There's always someone with a new, cool feature that they want added. And, yes, sometimes the suggestion is a great idea but even then, sometimes it just doesn't fit with the vision / concepts of the framework and has to be rejected (esp. if there's already a way to achieve the same thing, either inside or outside the framework, even if it is a bit "ugly"). The reason a framework can be so compelling is that it offers a clear, concise, conceptual pattern to solving a given set of problems. If it is ambiguous or complex, it will not be widely adopted. When a framework gets too complex, someone comes along with a new, simpler alternative. No single framework is going to solve 100% of all *your* problems - frameworks are somewhat generic by their very nature. That's hard to bear in mind when you have a specific problem that framework doesn't quite solve for you. Think hard about whether your problem is really a generic problem - if lots of people will have that problem, then maybe, just maybe, it might be something the framework should consider trying to solve in the future. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Got frameworks? "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood
