On 19. aug. 2010, at 13.40, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hello, > > a friend of mine and I wrote a framework together. I have the strong > feeling that PIWI should be based on ZC in near future since it offers > solutions for much problems we have. Additionally ZC can help PIWI to > concentrate on its maingoal. Maybe there is a chance to pull out a few > classes, level it to ZC quality standarts and include them there. This > being done, the next logical step after rebuilding PIWI on the back of > ZC would be to propose the framework to Apache. > > However I would like to know if there has been a decision meanwhile on > the prefix issue (see below). I would like to avoid to include ZC > before this change has been done, if it is going to happen. > > My preference is to change it. Its basically a complete rebrand and > when ZC offers some kind of helper script for users to at least > announce the files which use the wrong prefix, everything should be > pretty ok. I also think it's the last chance to do such a change. When > the next release is out people will claim about backwards > compatiblity. > > OK would like to hear you opinions on the prefix change.
I would strongly oppose such a change. This will be an expensive change for all users who maintain existing applications, and there would not be any real benefit of doing that right now, especially not just for the sake of a prefix. I agree with Tobias, that it makes sense to not alter the prefixes before for instance namespaces are adopted in the codebase, along with other BC-breaking changes suitable for a 2.0. Right now, I think it is important to get a 1.0 out the door, which is compatible with eZ Components 2009.2 and thereby establish a baseline, for all existing users out there. I agree with most other points being made here, about the importance of keeping that BC intact. -- Regards, Ole Marius
