Here's my +1 for Ralf's proposal! Actually, I liked the way of using an entry class. But I just liked it as there were not enough real-world examples around at the time I started to work with ZF 0.1.5. For a beginner a Zend class entry point definitely makes sense. It's always nice to "have something in your hands". But all this just because of a lack of documentation. Things have changed and the Zend developers lately focused a lot on documentation. Also by the 1.0 release there will be a lot of real-world sample applications around and nobody is afraid any more of using Zend_Registry instead of an inconsistent schizophrenic Zend base class.
I still believe we need to write a lot of bootstrap & application structure recommendations for various use cases. But we are not yet at 1.0. And besides, below-1.0 there is no arguing "help, it will break my code!" if we are facing an important change towards better consistency. Regards, Philip Ralf Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > I personally think that the proposed renaming of the Zend class to > Zend_Framework is very misleading. I would expect that a Zend_Framework > class will set up the whole framework and not be just a funny > conglomeration of methods who did not find their way to a proper component. > > Here are my suggestions: > > - move Zend::register(), Zend::registry(), Zend::isRegistered(), > Zend::initRegistry() and Zend::__unsetRegistry() to Zend_Registry > > - drop Zend::exception() and Zend::loadInterface() > > - move Zend::loadClass(), Zend::loadFile() and Zend::isReadable() to > a new Zend_Loader class > > - as suggested by others, move Zend::dump() to Zend_Debug > > - the only method I am not sure about yet is Zend::compareVersion() but > I bet we will find a solution for this as well > > Like others I would also suggest to implement these changes before the > 0.9.0 beta release gets launched. > > Best Regards, > > Ralf >
