It would be better if I don't forget to add the link to the gist https://gist.github.com/896184
Goulwen ----------------------------------------------------- Twitter : http://twitter.com/nautilebleu/ Skype : nautilebleu Web : http://nautilebleu.tumblr.com/ 2011/3/31 Nautile Bleu <[email protected]>: >> We might keep the Request class workable but let it delegate the work to >> a SF2:Request class, introduce a FronController class delegating to >> several components of SF2 but still do its previous work and introduce a >> Response class, delegating its work to a SF2:Response but still allowing >> people to write echo in their ManagerComponent if they want : we will >> just propose them a new (better) way of doing it. > > Just about the transition, I share the small method I wrote during the > dev sprint that allows using a template without breaking the existing > ? I just a small piece of code that allows to move the presentation in > a template if wanted. > > So it can be a first step to introduce templates, and when everyone > will have move its code in template, we can introduce a warning > message about echoing directly from the ManagerComponent. > > It's a lot easier to add HTML (or even JS) if needed and also easier > to understand than lots of <?php echo '<h1> Hi' . $name . '</h1><br/>' > ; ?> > > Regards > > Goulwen > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Twitter : http://twitter.com/nautilebleu/ > Skype : nautilebleu > Web : http://nautilebleu.tumblr.com/ > > > > 2011/3/31 <[email protected]>: >> Send Dev mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Dev digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: A big dependency... Symfony2 (Nautile Bleu) >> 2. Re: A big dependency... Symfony2 (Sven Vanpoucke) >> 3. Re: A big dependency... Symfony2 (Systho) >> 4. Re: A big dependency... Symfony2 (Laurent Opprecht) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:55:48 +0200 >> From: Nautile Bleu <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [chamilo-dev] A big dependency... Symfony2 >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >>> Ok ... so this is a tough one. Please not that the following is a mildly >>> sarcastic joke: while we're at it ... could we please just move to Java >>> for Chamilo 2. That would solve most problems and frustrations and give >>> us access to a complete set of widely supported libraries that have >>> really proven themselves (Hibernate, anyone?) >> >> If leaves to change, I then preferred that we move to Python. Among >> other advantages, it will give us lots of opportunities to revisit the >> sketches of Monty Python :) >>> >>> Back to the serious world. I can see where this is coming from. Truth be >>> told, if I had to restart today with Chamilo 2 ... or actually if I were >>> the one starting ... then some other decisions might have been made. >>> Sadly enough we've been around for a while now. I started working on >>> Chamilo 2 back in February 2007. If my sources are correct that's about >>> the time symfony 1.0 was released. Zend Framework 1.0 was released a few >>> months later (somewhere in the summer of 2007 if memory serves me well?) >> >> Yes, we start working on our current LMS on june 2006 with symfony >> 0.8. It's sad that at the time we don't know the Chamilo 2.0 project, >> maybe we were able to merge our 2 projects. >> >>> So where does that leave us now: with a modest framework (and that's >>> such a "heavy" word) which doesn't offer all the functionality giants >>> like ZF or S offer, but doesn't really need it either IMO. >> >> My current perception is that new generation frameworks (SF2/ZF2) >> doesn't do much, but try to do it well. The problem I see in current >> Chamilo is that nearly all things that in SF/ZF are in Chamilo but in >> a less polish and efficient way. So it's not really a question of >> functionality scope, but rather having something easier to use, with >> less code, more efficiently. Maybe it seems a huge project to change >> so dramatically the project only to have something is more easy to >> develop with, but in the other hand, pushing this logic to its end, we >> would all use Moodle? >> >>> I'm not saying we should reinvent the wheel every single time, but at the >>> very >>> least we should make sure the wheel fits our Cars (? Pixar / Disney). I >>> welcome ideas like using the Doctrine DBAL for access to DBMS storage >>> engines. But, and I could be wrong about this of course, to me there is >>> big difference between actually using something for a specific piece of >>> functionality and using it as the basis for your entire platform. I can >>> live with (and like) the first, but the second, at this point in time >>> ... well ... A (virtual) Bridge Too Far (even if it features Laurence >>> Olivier and Michael Caine) >> >> It's clear that this have a Deep Impact (yes, I can also use movie >> metaphor :p ) Moving to a SF2/ZF2 would take at least one year and >> probably more (I would be happy if it would be available for june 2012 >> release) >> >>> You could simply use whatever you need from whichever framework as a >>> library, but considering most of them are integrated solutions, that >>> just seems like creating extra - unwanted - overhead. >> >> In fact, the way SF2 is built you can use just the Request component >> without any other components (and so without other overhead) It's >> really a bunch of components loosely coupled. >> http://symfony.com/components >> >> It will also help a migration as parts of Chamilo can be replaced >> step-by-step. >> >>> Do we really want to have both the ZF classes for dealing with HTTP >>> Requests AND >>> the symfony classes for dealing with HTTP Requests included in our project? >>> (in response too: why not have more then one in there) >> >> Personnally I would say no: just one. I don't see the interest to have >> two libs to handle the same thing. >> >>> >>> I know this all sounds quite negative, but sadly enough I have to work >>> in the real world ... even though I'd much prefer to live in Utopia, >>> where I can keep on breaking (a modest number of) things to move on to >>> better architectures, ideas, concepts and whatnots. >> >> I'd say that you're wise and realistic. I want the best for chamilo2 >> but I also need something that works! It's good to have someone who >> keep an eye on that as coordinator :) >> >>> Btw. what is the current status of (stable releases for) symfony 2 >>> and/or ZF 2? >> >> Don't know for ZF2 but SF2 is Preview Release 9. I know some people >> currently use it in prod. But due to deadlines I consider to be >> realistic (circa June 2012 for a full migration), it's not really a >> problem. >> >> Regards, >> >> Goulwen >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:17:12 +0200 >> From: Sven Vanpoucke <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [chamilo-dev] A big dependency... Symfony2 >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >> >> Hi All >> >> The last few days i took a big look at how symfony and doctrine work. I >> must say that i'm impressed about the possibilities of the two frameworks. >> >> However... We are currently at the point where all the available >> developers need to deliver something between july / september. This >> means that we do not have the resources to integrate an entire new >> framework. I really really hope that after going in production and >> solving the first production issues the core developers of the product >> can spend some time again on these things. >> >> I do feel that using an entire framework at this stage of development is >> as hans already stated just a bridge to far. This would mean that we >> would need to change our entire architecture and i believe that if we >> would do that we could really forget new releases in the following >> years. I do agree that both SF2 / ZF2 have some very interesting >> features but i propose that we try to learn as much as possible from >> these frameworks so we can make our own chamilo framework even better. >> >> But if you can find me at least 20 developers who can maintain the >> current product and fix all the remaining issues then i'm not opposed to >> spend time on changing these things entirely ;) >> >> Best regards >> Sven >> >> Op 30/03/11 22:55, Nautile Bleu schreef: >>>> Ok ... so this is a tough one. Please not that the following is a mildly >>>> sarcastic joke: while we're at it ... could we please just move to Java >>>> for Chamilo 2. That would solve most problems and frustrations and give >>>> us access to a complete set of widely supported libraries that have >>>> really proven themselves (Hibernate, anyone?) >>>> >>> If leaves to change, I then preferred that we move to Python. Among >>> other advantages, it will give us lots of opportunities to revisit the >>> sketches of Monty Python :) >>> >>>> Back to the serious world. I can see where this is coming from. Truth be >>>> told, if I had to restart today with Chamilo 2 ... or actually if I were >>>> the one starting ... then some other decisions might have been made. >>>> Sadly enough we've been around for a while now. I started working on >>>> Chamilo 2 back in February 2007. If my sources are correct that's about >>>> the time symfony 1.0 was released. Zend Framework 1.0 was released a few >>>> months later (somewhere in the summer of 2007 if memory serves me well?) >>>> >>> Yes, we start working on our current LMS on june 2006 with symfony >>> 0.8. It's sad that at the time we don't know the Chamilo 2.0 project, >>> maybe we were able to merge our 2 projects. >>> >>> >>>> So where does that leave us now: with a modest framework (and that's >>>> such a "heavy" word) which doesn't offer all the functionality giants >>>> like ZF or S offer, but doesn't really need it either IMO. >>>> >>> My current perception is that new generation frameworks (SF2/ZF2) >>> doesn't do much, but try to do it well. The problem I see in current >>> Chamilo is that nearly all things that in SF/ZF are in Chamilo but in >>> a less polish and efficient way. So it's not really a question of >>> functionality scope, but rather having something easier to use, with >>> less code, more efficiently. Maybe it seems a huge project to change >>> so dramatically the project only to have something is more easy to >>> develop with, but in the other hand, pushing this logic to its end, we >>> would all use Moodle? >>> >>> >>>> I'm not saying we should reinvent the wheel every single time, but at the >>>> very >>>> least we should make sure the wheel fits our Cars (? Pixar / Disney). I >>>> welcome ideas like using the Doctrine DBAL for access to DBMS storage >>>> engines. But, and I could be wrong about this of course, to me there is >>>> big difference between actually using something for a specific piece of >>>> functionality and using it as the basis for your entire platform. I can >>>> live with (and like) the first, but the second, at this point in time >>>> ... well ... A (virtual) Bridge Too Far (even if it features Laurence >>>> Olivier and Michael Caine) >>>> >>> It's clear that this have a Deep Impact (yes, I can also use movie >>> metaphor :p ) Moving to a SF2/ZF2 would take at least one year and >>> probably more (I would be happy if it would be available for june 2012 >>> release) >>> >>> >>>> You could simply use whatever you need from whichever framework as a >>>> library, but considering most of them are integrated solutions, that >>>> just seems like creating extra - unwanted - overhead. >>>> >>> In fact, the way SF2 is built you can use just the Request component >>> without any other components (and so without other overhead) It's >>> really a bunch of components loosely coupled. >>> http://symfony.com/components >>> >>> It will also help a migration as parts of Chamilo can be replaced >>> step-by-step. >>> >>> >>>> Do we really want to have both the ZF classes for dealing with HTTP >>>> Requests AND >>>> the symfony classes for dealing with HTTP Requests included in our >>>> project? >>>> (in response too: why not have more then one in there) >>>> >>> Personnally I would say no: just one. I don't see the interest to have >>> two libs to handle the same thing. >>> >>> >>>> I know this all sounds quite negative, but sadly enough I have to work >>>> in the real world ... even though I'd much prefer to live in Utopia, >>>> where I can keep on breaking (a modest number of) things to move on to >>>> better architectures, ideas, concepts and whatnots. >>>> >>> I'd say that you're wise and realistic. I want the best for chamilo2 >>> but I also need something that works! It's good to have someone who >>> keep an eye on that as coordinator :) >>> >>> >>>> Btw. what is the current status of (stable releases for) symfony 2 >>>> and/or ZF 2? >>>> >>> Don't know for ZF2 but SF2 is Preview Release 9. I know some people >>> currently use it in prod. But due to deadlines I consider to be >>> realistic (circa June 2012 for a full migration), it's not really a >>> problem. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Goulwen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev >>> >> >> >> -- >> Met vriendelijke groeten >> >> Sven Vanpoucke >> Digitaal Leren >> Directie Onderwijs >> Hogeschool Gent >> http://digitaal-leren.hogent.be/ >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:19:36 +0200 >> From: Systho <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [chamilo-dev] A big dependency... Symfony2 >> Cc: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >> >> Hi all, >> >> I think my question has derived a little bit so may I have your opinion >> about the following idea : >> >> Not breaking anything but doing the same things we did before by >> delegating to components from SF2. or ZF2.0. Then mark the still working >> way of doing stuff deprecated and propose a new way. >> >> As most of you know my main concern is automated tests and the >> froncontroller/request/response stuff. >> >> We might keep the Request class workable but let it delegate the work to >> a SF2:Request class, introduce a FronController class delegating to >> several components of SF2 but still do its previous work and introduce a >> Response class, delegating its work to a SF2:Response but still allowing >> people to write echo in their ManagerComponent if they want : we will >> just propose them a new (better) way of doing it. >> >> If the size of the dependency is not a problem (none of you stated it >> is), then from my POV the only problem left is that we might finish with >> a lot of dependency : >> >> SF2.0 for request handling / ZF2.0 for templating / CodeIgniter for >> logging / .... >> >> I think it is not a problem as long as we hide those dependencies behind >> custom adapter classes but your opinion would be highly valuable before >> I begin the work ;) >> >> Systho >> Le 31/03/2011 8:17, Sven Vanpoucke a ?crit : >>> Hi All >>> >>> The last few days i took a big look at how symfony and doctrine work. >>> I must say that i'm impressed about the possibilities of the two >>> frameworks. >>> >>> However... We are currently at the point where all the available >>> developers need to deliver something between july / september. This >>> means that we do not have the resources to integrate an entire new >>> framework. I really really hope that after going in production and >>> solving the first production issues the core developers of the product >>> can spend some time again on these things. >>> >>> I do feel that using an entire framework at this stage of development >>> is as hans already stated just a bridge to far. This would mean that >>> we would need to change our entire architecture and i believe that if >>> we would do that we could really forget new releases in the following >>> years. I do agree that both SF2 / ZF2 have some very interesting >>> features but i propose that we try to learn as much as possible from >>> these frameworks so we can make our own chamilo framework even better. >>> >>> But if you can find me at least 20 developers who can maintain the >>> current product and fix all the remaining issues then i'm not opposed >>> to spend time on changing these things entirely ;) >>> >>> Best regards >>> Sven >>> >>> Op 30/03/11 22:55, Nautile Bleu schreef: >>>>> Ok ... so this is a tough one. Please not that the following is a >>>>> mildly >>>>> sarcastic joke: while we're at it ... could we please just move to Java >>>>> for Chamilo 2. That would solve most problems and frustrations and give >>>>> us access to a complete set of widely supported libraries that have >>>>> really proven themselves (Hibernate, anyone?) >>>> If leaves to change, I then preferred that we move to Python. Among >>>> other advantages, it will give us lots of opportunities to revisit the >>>> sketches of Monty Python :) >>>>> Back to the serious world. I can see where this is coming from. >>>>> Truth be >>>>> told, if I had to restart today with Chamilo 2 ... or actually if I >>>>> were >>>>> the one starting ... then some other decisions might have been made. >>>>> Sadly enough we've been around for a while now. I started working on >>>>> Chamilo 2 back in February 2007. If my sources are correct that's about >>>>> the time symfony 1.0 was released. Zend Framework 1.0 was released a >>>>> few >>>>> months later (somewhere in the summer of 2007 if memory serves me >>>>> well?) >>>> Yes, we start working on our current LMS on june 2006 with symfony >>>> 0.8. It's sad that at the time we don't know the Chamilo 2.0 project, >>>> maybe we were able to merge our 2 projects. >>>> >>>>> So where does that leave us now: with a modest framework (and that's >>>>> such a "heavy" word) which doesn't offer all the functionality giants >>>>> like ZF or S offer, but doesn't really need it either IMO. >>>> My current perception is that new generation frameworks (SF2/ZF2) >>>> doesn't do much, but try to do it well. The problem I see in current >>>> Chamilo is that nearly all things that in SF/ZF are in Chamilo but in >>>> a less polish and efficient way. So it's not really a question of >>>> functionality scope, but rather having something easier to use, with >>>> less code, more efficiently. Maybe it seems a huge project to change >>>> so dramatically the project only to have something is more easy to >>>> develop with, but in the other hand, pushing this logic to its end, we >>>> would all use Moodle? >>>> >>>>> I'm not saying we should reinvent the wheel every single time, but >>>>> at the very >>>>> least we should make sure the wheel fits our Cars (? Pixar / Disney). I >>>>> welcome ideas like using the Doctrine DBAL for access to DBMS storage >>>>> engines. But, and I could be wrong about this of course, to me there is >>>>> big difference between actually using something for a specific piece of >>>>> functionality and using it as the basis for your entire platform. I can >>>>> live with (and like) the first, but the second, at this point in time >>>>> ... well ... A (virtual) Bridge Too Far (even if it features Laurence >>>>> Olivier and Michael Caine) >>>> It's clear that this have a Deep Impact (yes, I can also use movie >>>> metaphor :p ) Moving to a SF2/ZF2 would take at least one year and >>>> probably more (I would be happy if it would be available for june 2012 >>>> release) >>>> >>>>> You could simply use whatever you need from whichever framework as a >>>>> library, but considering most of them are integrated solutions, that >>>>> just seems like creating extra - unwanted - overhead. >>>> In fact, the way SF2 is built you can use just the Request component >>>> without any other components (and so without other overhead) It's >>>> really a bunch of components loosely coupled. >>>> http://symfony.com/components >>>> >>>> It will also help a migration as parts of Chamilo can be replaced >>>> step-by-step. >>>> >>>>> Do we really want to have both the ZF classes for dealing with HTTP >>>>> Requests AND >>>>> the symfony classes for dealing with HTTP Requests included in our >>>>> project? >>>>> (in response too: why not have more then one in there) >>>> Personnally I would say no: just one. I don't see the interest to have >>>> two libs to handle the same thing. >>>> >>>>> I know this all sounds quite negative, but sadly enough I have to work >>>>> in the real world ... even though I'd much prefer to live in Utopia, >>>>> where I can keep on breaking (a modest number of) things to move on to >>>>> better architectures, ideas, concepts and whatnots. >>>> I'd say that you're wise and realistic. I want the best for chamilo2 >>>> but I also need something that works! It's good to have someone who >>>> keep an eye on that as coordinator :) >>>> >>>>> Btw. what is the current status of (stable releases for) symfony 2 >>>>> and/or ZF 2? >>>> Don't know for ZF2 but SF2 is Preview Release 9. I know some people >>>> currently use it in prod. But due to deadlines I consider to be >>>> realistic (circa June 2012 for a full migration), it's not really a >>>> problem. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Goulwen >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:24:37 +0200 >> From: Laurent Opprecht <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [chamilo-dev] A big dependency... Symfony2 >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >> >> Let's me add my two cents there. >> >> While SF or ZF may be good frameworks what would be the tangible >> benefits to move to any of them? That is beside making us happy to know >> we are using the latest trend in development framework. And, would those >> benefits offset the effort to do a major refactoring, once again should >> I say? Could we decrease code size significantly? Could we implement new >> functionalities, for example templates a la smarty, that would be >> visible to the end user? >> >> I am certainly not against assessing those two frameworks and possibly >> moving to them but only once we have completed the work at hand. I >> certainly aggree that for now we should focus on supporting production >> moves. That is correcting bugs, adding needed new functionalities, etc. >> >> Then I think it would help to see a few examples on how we could use any >> of those two framework to make our life easier. Personnaly I don't have >> enough time at hand to have a deep look into those frameworks so having >> a few examples would help me make an opinion. >> >> Cheers >> >> >> Le 31.03.2011 08:17, Sven Vanpoucke a ?crit : >>> Hi All >>> >>> The last few days i took a big look at how symfony and doctrine work. >>> I must say that i'm impressed about the possibilities of the two >>> frameworks. >>> >>> However... We are currently at the point where all the available >>> developers need to deliver something between july / september. This >>> means that we do not have the resources to integrate an entire new >>> framework. I really really hope that after going in production and >>> solving the first production issues the core developers of the product >>> can spend some time again on these things. >>> >>> I do feel that using an entire framework at this stage of development >>> is as hans already stated just a bridge to far. This would mean that >>> we would need to change our entire architecture and i believe that if >>> we would do that we could really forget new releases in the following >>> years. I do agree that both SF2 / ZF2 have some very interesting >>> features but i propose that we try to learn as much as possible from >>> these frameworks so we can make our own chamilo framework even better. >>> >>> But if you can find me at least 20 developers who can maintain the >>> current product and fix all the remaining issues then i'm not opposed >>> to spend time on changing these things entirely ;) >>> >>> Best regards >>> Sven >>> >>> Op 30/03/11 22:55, Nautile Bleu schreef: >>>>> Ok ... so this is a tough one. Please not that the following is a >>>>> mildly >>>>> sarcastic joke: while we're at it ... could we please just move to Java >>>>> for Chamilo 2. That would solve most problems and frustrations and give >>>>> us access to a complete set of widely supported libraries that have >>>>> really proven themselves (Hibernate, anyone?) >>>> If leaves to change, I then preferred that we move to Python. Among >>>> other advantages, it will give us lots of opportunities to revisit the >>>> sketches of Monty Python :) >>>>> Back to the serious world. I can see where this is coming from. >>>>> Truth be >>>>> told, if I had to restart today with Chamilo 2 ... or actually if I >>>>> were >>>>> the one starting ... then some other decisions might have been made. >>>>> Sadly enough we've been around for a while now. I started working on >>>>> Chamilo 2 back in February 2007. If my sources are correct that's about >>>>> the time symfony 1.0 was released. Zend Framework 1.0 was released a >>>>> few >>>>> months later (somewhere in the summer of 2007 if memory serves me >>>>> well?) >>>> Yes, we start working on our current LMS on june 2006 with symfony >>>> 0.8. It's sad that at the time we don't know the Chamilo 2.0 project, >>>> maybe we were able to merge our 2 projects. >>>> >>>>> So where does that leave us now: with a modest framework (and that's >>>>> such a "heavy" word) which doesn't offer all the functionality giants >>>>> like ZF or S offer, but doesn't really need it either IMO. >>>> My current perception is that new generation frameworks (SF2/ZF2) >>>> doesn't do much, but try to do it well. The problem I see in current >>>> Chamilo is that nearly all things that in SF/ZF are in Chamilo but in >>>> a less polish and efficient way. So it's not really a question of >>>> functionality scope, but rather having something easier to use, with >>>> less code, more efficiently. Maybe it seems a huge project to change >>>> so dramatically the project only to have something is more easy to >>>> develop with, but in the other hand, pushing this logic to its end, we >>>> would all use Moodle? >>>> >>>>> I'm not saying we should reinvent the wheel every single time, but >>>>> at the very >>>>> least we should make sure the wheel fits our Cars (? Pixar / Disney). I >>>>> welcome ideas like using the Doctrine DBAL for access to DBMS storage >>>>> engines. But, and I could be wrong about this of course, to me there is >>>>> big difference between actually using something for a specific piece of >>>>> functionality and using it as the basis for your entire platform. I can >>>>> live with (and like) the first, but the second, at this point in time >>>>> ... well ... A (virtual) Bridge Too Far (even if it features Laurence >>>>> Olivier and Michael Caine) >>>> It's clear that this have a Deep Impact (yes, I can also use movie >>>> metaphor :p ) Moving to a SF2/ZF2 would take at least one year and >>>> probably more (I would be happy if it would be available for june 2012 >>>> release) >>>> >>>>> You could simply use whatever you need from whichever framework as a >>>>> library, but considering most of them are integrated solutions, that >>>>> just seems like creating extra - unwanted - overhead. >>>> In fact, the way SF2 is built you can use just the Request component >>>> without any other components (and so without other overhead) It's >>>> really a bunch of components loosely coupled. >>>> http://symfony.com/components >>>> >>>> It will also help a migration as parts of Chamilo can be replaced >>>> step-by-step. >>>> >>>>> Do we really want to have both the ZF classes for dealing with HTTP >>>>> Requests AND >>>>> the symfony classes for dealing with HTTP Requests included in our >>>>> project? >>>>> (in response too: why not have more then one in there) >>>> Personnally I would say no: just one. I don't see the interest to have >>>> two libs to handle the same thing. >>>> >>>>> I know this all sounds quite negative, but sadly enough I have to work >>>>> in the real world ... even though I'd much prefer to live in Utopia, >>>>> where I can keep on breaking (a modest number of) things to move on to >>>>> better architectures, ideas, concepts and whatnots. >>>> I'd say that you're wise and realistic. I want the best for chamilo2 >>>> but I also need something that works! It's good to have someone who >>>> keep an eye on that as coordinator :) >>>> >>>>> Btw. what is the current status of (stable releases for) symfony 2 >>>>> and/or ZF 2? >>>> Don't know for ZF2 but SF2 is Preview Release 9. I know some people >>>> currently use it in prod. But due to deadlines I consider to be >>>> realistic (circa June 2012 for a full migration), it's not really a >>>> problem. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Goulwen >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________________________ >> Meilleures salutations >> >> Laurent Opprecht >> chat: [email protected] >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: laurent_opprecht.vcf >> Type: text/x-vcard >> Size: 404 bytes >> Desc: not available >> URL: >> <http://lists.chamilo.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20110331/9d011956/attachment.vcf> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev >> >> >> End of Dev Digest, Vol 14, Issue 25 >> *********************************** >> > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev
