Hello,
I am glad to see ZF on a PEAR channel.
However, I feel there are some advantages to distributing in micro
packages versus a single macro package. Mostly, that distributing
smaller packages forces an explicit enumeration of dependencies
between packages. I believe the process of breaking the framework up
into smaller PEAR packages will make the framework better by making
dependencies more explicit and forcing people to think more about them.
I also think that micro packages would help adoption. I can say that
I would be more willing to use ZF components if I can first use and
become familiar with a couple of the more independent packages
without creating a huge dependency in my code on stuff that I am not
using and don't necessarily understand. In other words, if I have to
install the whole framework to use it in my application, I have more
to understand and thus a higher barrier to using it.
Additionally, I think a micro package release would boost the
ecosystem around ZF as other PEAR channels and code bases can better
integrate dependencies on ZF.
Best Regards,
Jeff
On Feb 1, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Michael Caplan wrote:
If I am not off my rocker about not requiring the entire framework to
use individual components, wouldn't this open up the possibility for
individual component packages? My understanding of the PEAR package
format is that it support optional and required dependencies,
including
version dependencies. Wouldn't this feature shift "the responsibility
and effort of integrating different versions of different
components" to
the PEAR package system, resolving the stated concern about end
developer complications?
