Seems lot a lot of extra bloat, that would only ever be used by a small percentile of people. I'd therefore consider these "edge cases".
A framework ceases to be a "framework" if you have all of those functions, and becomes more like an application server. Infact, most of that functionality is available via the ill-fated OpenACS platform from the equally ill-fated ArsDigita. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. SpikeSource offer "full stacks" of "certified" integrated components, that can offer you something along these lines... I'm REALLY against a framework that tries to do too much, and enforces this on it's users. Developers aren't stupid, and they'll drop a product like a hot potato if it's making their life more difficult than it needs to. The beauty about a well designed (eg extensible) framework, and OO code is that a developer is free to add what components they consider to be "best of breed" to fit their particular needs. Personally, I think the only thing Symfony needs to "add" is better handling of forms via AJAX and some form of handling sfGuard functionality via AJAX (which would probably require adoption or creation of a JSON based DSL). On 30 Jan 2009, at 08:48, Peter Bowyer wrote: > I came across this today, someone's take on what's missing from > modern web frameworks. While a lot of the social side of what he's > requesting doesn't belong in an application framework IMO, it makes > for interesting reading. > > http://randomfoo.net/2009/01/28/infrastructure-for-modern-web-sites --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
