Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Jordan Moore]

Simply having the Zend Framework components that use these services in
your web application doesn't violate any license. In the case of
AudioScrobbler, you're only violating the license if you actually use
the component to query the web service and you do something with the
response content that is considered "commercial".

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Pádraic
>
> Yes, no one argues that, we all know that it's not Zend's responsibility to
> provide such information. I'm just saying that some components distributed
> with the ZF cannot be used by my company, and therefore I have to make sure
> that they get excluded from the deployment process. It's my responsibility
> to make sure that these files get excluded from the framework, there's no
> question about that. Now, I just found out about this yesterday. What if no
> one had reported this to me? I assumed everything was fine, and of course, I
> made a mistake. So what I'm trying to say is that there are ways to help
> other developers avoid making the same mistake I made, like for example,
> adding extra information to the docblock, or telling them "this component is
> for non-commercial use only".
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Jordan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I would say that providing a link is as far as ZF should go. Stating
>> the license terms (or just the type of license) within ZF code or
>> documentation would be a maintenance headache because licenses can and
>> do change. In the case of a license change, ZF would then have
>> outdated licensing information, which I would argue is more harmful
>> than not providing any information at all.
>>
>> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Federico Cargnelutti
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
>> >> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
>> >> for.
>> >
>> > You make it sound like providing extra and valuable information is a bad
>> > thing. I think the more information you provide to the user, the better.
>> > At
>> > the end of the day, that's what the docblock is for right?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Bryan Dunlap
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  Original Message 
>> >> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
>> >> From: "Greg Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
>> >> To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
>> >>
>> >> On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
>> >> >> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've
>> >> >> never
>> >> >> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >> >Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages
>> >> >you encounter before allowing your browser to render them?
>> >>
>> >> >A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
>> >> >for your convenience". If it's not supposed to be public then it
>> >> >should require authentication.
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >> >--
>> >> >Greg Donald
>> >> >http://destiney.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
>> >> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
>> >> for.  I think providing URLs in the manual and/or the component's
>> >> docblock is more than enough, and should be considered a convenience
>> >> for
>> >> the developer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Ryan Moore
>
>



-- 
Jordan Ryan Moore

RE: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Wil Sinclair]

Whoaa, there! I haven't been following this discussion closely up to this 
point. You make it sound like the distribution of these components violates 
someone's license, but if I read it in detail I believe you are saying that you 
can't use some service that these components access according to their 
licensing.

We're very careful about keeping ZF's licensing story simple and unambiguous. 
Just to make it 100% clear, can someone please list all services that are of 
concern here along with what the *precise* concern is. I will see if there's 
anything we need to do to address these concerns in the project.

Please understand, we can't allow this conversation to confuse casual list 
observers- crystal-clean IP is one of our greatest strengths!

 

Thanks.

,Wil

 

From: Federico Cargnelutti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:55 PM
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

 

Hi Pádraic

Yes, no one argues that, we all know that it's not Zend's responsibility to 
provide such information. I'm just saying that some components distributed with 
the ZF cannot be used by my company, and therefore I have to make sure that 
they get excluded from the deployment process. It's my responsibility to make 
sure that these files get excluded from the framework, there's no question 
about that. Now, I just found out about this yesterday. What if no one had 
reported this to me? I assumed everything was fine, and of course, I made a 
mistake. So what I'm trying to say is that there are ways to help other 
developers avoid making the same mistake I made, like for example, adding extra 
information to the docblock, or telling them "this component is for 
non-commercial use only".




On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Jordan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I would say that providing a link is as far as ZF should go. Stating
the license terms (or just the type of license) within ZF code or
documentation would be a maintenance headache because licenses can and
do change. In the case of a license change, ZF would then have
outdated licensing information, which I would argue is more harmful
than not providing any information at all.


On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
>> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
>> for.
>
> You make it sound like providing extra and valuable information is a bad
> thing. I think the more information you provide to the user, the better. At
> the end of the day, that's what the docblock is for right?
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Bryan Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
>> From: "Greg Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
>> To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
>>
>> On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
>> >> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've never
>> >> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.
>>
>>
>> 
>> >Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages
>> >you encounter before allowing your browser to render them?
>>
>> >A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
>> >for your convenience". If it's not supposed to be public then it
>> >should require authentication.
>> 
>>
>> >--
>> >Greg Donald
>> >http://destiney.com/
>>
>>
>> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
>> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
>> for.  I think providing URLs in the manual and/or the component's
>> docblock is more than enough, and should be considered a convenience for
>> the developer.
>>
>>
>
>




--
Jordan Ryan Moore

 

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Federico Cargnelutti]

Hi Pádraic

Yes, no one argues that, we all know that it's not Zend's responsibility to
provide such information. I'm just saying that some components distributed
with the ZF cannot be used by my company, and therefore I have to make sure
that they get excluded from the deployment process. It's my responsibility
to make sure that these files get excluded from the framework, there's no
question about that. Now, I just found out about this yesterday. What if no
one had reported this to me? I assumed everything was fine, and of course, I
made a mistake. So what I'm trying to say is that there are ways to help
other developers avoid making the same mistake I made, like for example,
adding extra information to the docblock, or telling them "this component is
for non-commercial use only".



On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Jordan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I would say that providing a link is as far as ZF should go. Stating
> the license terms (or just the type of license) within ZF code or
> documentation would be a maintenance headache because licenses can and
> do change. In the case of a license change, ZF would then have
> outdated licensing information, which I would argue is more harmful
> than not providing any information at all.
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Federico Cargnelutti
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
> >> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
> >> for.
> >
> > You make it sound like providing extra and valuable information is a bad
> > thing. I think the more information you provide to the user, the better.
> At
> > the end of the day, that's what the docblock is for right?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Bryan Dunlap <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>  Original Message 
> >> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
> >> From: "Greg Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
> >> To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
> >>
> >> On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
> >> >> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've
> never
> >> >> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> >Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages
> >> >you encounter before allowing your browser to render them?
> >>
> >> >A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
> >> >for your convenience". If it's not supposed to be public then it
> >> >should require authentication.
> >> 
> >>
> >> >--
> >> >Greg Donald
> >> >http://destiney.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
> >> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
> >> for.  I think providing URLs in the manual and/or the component's
> >> docblock is more than enough, and should be considered a convenience for
> >> the developer.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Ryan Moore
>

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Jordan Moore]

I would say that providing a link is as far as ZF should go. Stating
the license terms (or just the type of license) within ZF code or
documentation would be a maintenance headache because licenses can and
do change. In the case of a license change, ZF would then have
outdated licensing information, which I would argue is more harmful
than not providing any information at all.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
>> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
>> for.
>
> You make it sound like providing extra and valuable information is a bad
> thing. I think the more information you provide to the user, the better. At
> the end of the day, that's what the docblock is for right?
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Bryan Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
>> From: "Greg Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
>> To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
>>
>> On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
>> >> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've never
>> >> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.
>>
>>
>> 
>> >Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages
>> >you encounter before allowing your browser to render them?
>>
>> >A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
>> >for your convenience". If it's not supposed to be public then it
>> >should require authentication.
>> 
>>
>> >--
>> >Greg Donald
>> >http://destiney.com/
>>
>>
>> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
>> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
>> for.  I think providing URLs in the manual and/or the component's
>> docblock is more than enough, and should be considered a convenience for
>> the developer.
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Jordan Ryan Moore

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Pádraic Brady]

Nobody is suggesting it's bad, just that it's not necessary and isn't the 
framework's or Zend's responsibility. All code in the framework merely 
facilitates an interface to these web services which in no way falls under 
those web services' terms of use, licensing or copyrighting. The usage of a 
developer may, but its then their responsibility alone to ensure they meet the 
requirement of the service in question and that will always involve reading the 
terms of use and any attached licensing of data.

I don't see what the problem there is...

 Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.patternsforphp.com
OpenID Europe Foundation Member-Subscriber




- Original Message 
From: Federico Cargnelutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bryan Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:14:55 PM
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
> for.

You make it sound like providing extra and valuable information is a bad thing. 
I think the more information you provide to the user, the better. At the end of 
the day, that's what the docblock is for right? 




On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Bryan Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
From: "Greg Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com

On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
>> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've never
>> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.




>Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages
>you encounter before allowing your browser to render them?


>A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
>for your convenience". If it's not supposed to be public then it
>should require authentication.



>--
>Greg Donald
>http://destiney.com/


Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
for.  I think providing URLs in the manual and/or the component's
docblock is more than enough, and should be considered a convenience for
the developer.

[fw-general] Re: formLabel and escaping

[Joshua Ross]

Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

-- Teemu Välimäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Tuesday, 04 March 2008, 03:29 PM +0200):
In Zend_Form I'd like to have label linked, but formLabel escapes output. I 
was wondering if it would be smart to add $escape = true parameter to 
formLabel to control escaping? The problem what I have is currently with 
Zend_Form so I could create a workaround, but it could pop up later on when 
using View Helpers.


Actually, you already can do this ;-)

Grab your label decorator:

$label = $element->getDecorator('label');

And set the escape option to false (so you can render HTML in the
label):

$label->setOption('escape', false);

Alternately, you can do this at decorator creation time by passing the
escape option:

$element->addDecorator('label', array('escape' => false));

When $escape is true (the default), the label will be escaped using the
view object's escaping mechanism. When false, no escaping will be done.

The escape flag is already built into the view helpers, and can be
passed into the $attribs array each form view helper accepts (though not
all of them honor it at this point).




Any way to do this through a Zend_Config ini file?

-Joshua-

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Federico Cargnelutti]

> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
> for.

You make it sound like providing extra and valuable information is a bad
thing. I think the more information you provide to the user, the better. At
the end of the day, that's what the docblock is for right?



On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Bryan Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
> From: "Greg Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
> To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
>
> On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
> >> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've never
> >> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.
>
>
> 
> >Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages
> >you encounter before allowing your browser to render them?
>
> >A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
> >for your convenience". If it's not supposed to be public then it
> >should require authentication.
> 
>
> >--
> >Greg Donald
> >http://destiney.com/
>
>
> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
> for.  I think providing URLs in the manual and/or the component's
> docblock is more than enough, and should be considered a convenience for
> the developer.
>
>
>

RE: [fw-general] Subdomains and Zend Framework

[Eric Marden]

Is each subdomain running the same app or are there diffs in the code
across the subdomains?
 
 
--
Eric Marden
 




From: Jason Qi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:38 AM
To: Jerry McG; fw-general@lists.zend.com
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Subdomains and Zend Framework


Yes, I agree with you. To computer, there are no different
between "www" and " Chicago" or "Newyork", but the name itself.

Jason.


Jerry McG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


Hi All,

I have a file system layout similar to the
recommendation at

http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.controller.html#zend.controller
.quickstart.go.directory
I would like to work with subdomains such as
http://chicago.example.com and
http://newyork.example.com. I have added these
subdomains in my Apache
virtual hosts file as well as in the Windows hosts file.
Now, how can I make
subdomains work in Zend Framework. Should I create
folders called Chicago
and Newyork and repeat the recommended layout within
these folders?

Please guide me.

Thanks!

Jerry.
-- 
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Subdomains-and-Zend-Framework-tp17125088p17125088.
html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.







Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
Mobile. Try it now.
 

[fw-general] SourceForge using Zend_OpenId

[lcrouch]

hey all. just wanted to let everyone know we're using Zend_OpenId component
now at SourceForge.net to support OpenID logins. already getting some
feedback, but would be great to maybe get some feedback from the ZF
community specifically.

http://sourceforge.net/community/openid-on-sourceforgenet/

-L
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/SourceForge-using-Zend_OpenId-tp17136720p17136720.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[fw-general] Error trying to insert some data using Zend_Db_Table/PostgreSQL

[Juan Felipe Alvarez Saldarriaga]

Hey!

I got an error, actually I can't see it, but let me explain the situation, I'm 
using PostgreSQL 8.3 and I have this table:

clinic_system_platform_xref:
* clinic_id integer NOT NULL
* platform_id integer NOT NULL

Both columns are the primary key of the table:

clinic_system_platform_xref_pkey PRIMARY KEY (clinic_id, platform_id)

So what's the problem ? when I try to insert a record into this table, nothing 
happend, I mean not even an Exception, nothing, then the PosgreSQL crash!. I 
recreate the same table but I add a new column, and works perfect now, the 
question, is this a PDO/ZendFramework error ? maybe a bug or something ?, this 
is the new table structure:

clinic_system_platform_xref_test:
* clinic_system_platform_xref_id integer NOT NULL
* clinic_id integer NOT NULL
* platform_id integer NOT NULL

PRIMARY KEY: clinic_system_platform_xref_test_pkey PRIMARY KEY 
(clinic_system_platform_xref_id)

This is my PHP code, with this code doesn't work:

/**
 * GenericTable class.
 *
 */
class GenericTable extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract
{
/**
 * Class constructor
 *
 * @return void
 */
public function __construct ( Array $arrTableInfo = array ( ) )
{
// loop through the table info values and set them to the class' 
attributes
foreach ( $arrTableInfo as $strFieldKey => $strFieldValue )
{
// set it!
$this->$strFieldKey = $strFieldValue;
}

parent::__construct ( array ( 'db' => Zend_Registry::get( "objDb" ) ) );
}
}

$objClinicPlatformTable = new GenericTable( array( 
"_name" => "clinic_system_platform_xref", 
"_schema" => "schema_2"
) 
);

$objClinicPlatformTable->insert( array( "clinic_id" => $intClinicId, 
"platform_id" => $intPlatformId ) );

Thx for any help.

RE: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Bryan Dunlap]

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
From: "Greg Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com

On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
>> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've never
>> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.



>Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages
>you encounter before allowing your browser to render them?

>A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
>for your convenience". If it's not supposed to be public then it
>should require authentication.


>-- 
>Greg Donald
>http://destiney.com/


Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions
that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client
for.  I think providing URLs in the manual and/or the component's
docblock is more than enough, and should be considered a convenience for
the developer.

RE: [fw-general] Custom view helper and auto detecting directory

[Robert Castley]

I think I have found a better way to ask my question:
 
Is there anyway you can find out which file created an instance of you
class?

  _  

From: Robert Castley 
Sent: 08 May 2008 12:47
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Subject: [fw-general] Custom view helper and auto detecting directory


Hi,
 
This is probably more of a PHP than ZF question, but I am hoping some can
help :-)
 
I have a custom view helper class for widgets that live outside the MVC
structure i.e.
 
htdocs
  application
controllers
models
views
...
  library
Magik
  View
Helper
  WidgetMessage.php
  View.php
...
   widgets
 MyWidget
   MyWidget.php
   MyWidget.phtml

 

class Magik_View extends Zend_View
{
public function __construct($path = null)
{
$this->addHelperPath('library' . DS . 'Magik' . DS . 'View' . DS .
'Helper' , 'Magik_View_Helper');

$this->setScriptPath($path);
}

}


As you can see in the above code I have to pass a path when I call the class
within my file MyWidget.php e.g.

$view = new Magik_View(dirname(__FILE__));

What I would like to be able to do is just use:

$view = new Magik_View();

So, my question is, is there anyway for my custom view helpler to be able to
automatically detect the directory that MyWidget.php is living in?

Thanks in advance,

- Robert



This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security Service and the Macro 4 plc internal virus protection system.



This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security Service and the Macro 4 plc internal virus protection system.





This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email 
Security Service and the Macro 4 plc internal virus protection system.

[fw-general] Firebird Adapter

[Bagus Nugroho]

Hi,
I have project of ERP of automotive that previously desktop based, and proposed 
to be web based. Unfortunatelly, it was using firebird database, and I'm 
confuse to understand what the meaning of :
===
This Adapter uses the PHP extension php_interbase.
=
in the manual, can anybody give me a sample how to configure Adapter using 
php_interbase.
 
 
Thank In Advance
bn

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[till]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Till, I think you've just made my point, we should try to reduce
> assumptions as much as possible.

No, I said you shouldn't assume anything when using a (web)service.

Took me three (3) clicks to find this page:
http://www.audioscrobbler.net/data/webservices/

See Licensing. I think this is no big deal. If you don't read it and
skip over it, then that is not a ZF problem.

Till

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

-- Federico Cargnelutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 08 May 2008, 05:01 PM +0100):
> > Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers) to investigate and
> understand what they're using.
> 
> Yes, adding a URL to the T&C and/or license in the docblock would be ideal.

I could argue that since the links are in the manual, there's no need to
do this. However, not everyone reads the manual, and it *would* be good
to have this in the code.

Please place an issue in the tracker requesting links to each service
(note: not just AudioScrobbler) in the class docblocks.


> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> And if this is the case, who is responsible of informing me?
> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Federico.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, you are.
> 
> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming.  I've never
> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.
> 
> I think putting the URL for the service in the component's docblock is
> more than sufficient.  Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers)
> to investigate and understand what they're using.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Software Architect   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zend - The PHP Company   | http://www.zend.com/

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Bradley Holt]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Marcus Bointon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On 8 May 2008, at 17:00, Greg Donald wrote:
>
>  A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
>> for your convenience".  If it's not supposed to be public then it
>> should require authentication.
>>
>
>
> So you're saying that you think all public web pages are copyright-free?


This is why I earlier brought up the differentiation between the licensing
of the *content* and the use of the *service*. Any public web page is
implicitly letting you "use" it (access it, load the page, have your web
browser cache it, etc.). This goes for a web service as well - unless it's
locked behind an API key then one can assume the *service* is free to be
used as you want (now, there are probably terms of use which one should be
aware of). None of this means that you have anything beyond fair-use rights
to the *content* of that website or web service. In this situation
(Audioscrobbler), the license only applies to the *content* not the
*service*.


>
>
> Marcus
> --
> Marcus Bointon
> Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
> UK resellers of [EMAIL PROTECTED] CRM solutions
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/
>
>
>


-- 
Bradley Holt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Greg Donald]

On 5/8/08, Marcus Bointon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  So you're saying that you think all public web pages are copyright-free?

Yes, they are protected under the fair use doctine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use


Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows
limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from
the rights holders


Why would a site purposely build a web service around a copyrighted
work, not require authentication to it, then fault me for accessing
it?


-- 
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/

[fw-general] Zend_Filter_Input and Arrays

[Kevin McArthur]

Is there a way to validate array inputs with Zend_Filter_Input? Both 
single dimension name='array[0]' and multi-dimensional where one wants 
to validate multiple levels of keys like 
(name="array['input1']['input2']" value="input3")


This info might be in the manual, but I can't seem to locate it.

Kevin

--

Kevin McArthur

StormTide Digital Studios Inc.
Author of the recently published book, "Pro PHP"
http://www.stormtide.ca

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

-- Federico Cargnelutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 08 May 2008, 11:33 AM +0100):
> Hi Till, I think you've just made my point, we should try to reduce 
> assumptions
> as much as possible.
> 
> What you said about the API key forcing the user to accept the terms
> and conditions sounds great, but it's not always like that. That's why
> I mentioned Audioscrobbler.

We provide the tool for accessing the content, but it is up to the
individual developer to make sure that they are in compliance with the
service's terms of use. Many services do this via an API key, as Till
indicates. For those that don't, it's up to the developer to read and
understand the terms of service. In all service consumables, we link to
the service provider, so that the developer can do so -- you can see
this clearly in the first paragraph describing
Zend_Service_AudioScrobbler.

> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM, till <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Federico Cargnelutti
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (...) A user might assume that Zend has some kind (...)
> 
> And that's exactly it. An assumption.
> 
> Many web services forbid commercial usage with the regular API keys
> (Flickr, Google Maps, ...). In any way, what you do with the Zend
> Framework code is your responsibility, you can't expect warning flags
> all over. Those warning flags are at the website when you sign up for
> an API key (Terms of Service are usually there for a reason).

-- 
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Software Architect   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zend - The PHP Company   | http://www.zend.com/

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Marcus Bointon]

On 8 May 2008, at 17:00, Greg Donald wrote:


A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
for your convenience".  If it's not supposed to be public then it
should require authentication.



So you're saying that you think all public web pages are copyright-free?

Marcus
--
Marcus Bointon
Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
UK resellers of [EMAIL PROTECTED] CRM solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Federico Cargnelutti]

> Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers) to investigate and
understand what they're using.

Yes, adding a URL to the T&C and/or license in the docblock would be ideal.


On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> >> And if this is the case, who is responsible of informing me?
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Federico.
>
>
> In my opinion, you are.
>
> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming.  I've never
> simply "assumed" that I could use at will.
>
> I think putting the URL for the service in the component's docblock is
> more than sufficient.  Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers)
> to investigate and understand what they're using.
>
>
>

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Greg Donald]

On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
>  and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming.  I've never
>  simply "assumed" that I could use at will.

Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages
you encounter before allowing your browser to render them?

A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML
for your convenience".  If it's not supposed to be public then it
should require authentication.


-- 
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/

RE: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[bryan . dunlap]

>> And if this is the case, who is responsible of informing me? 
  
>> Regards,
>> Federico.


In my opinion, you are.

Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C
and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming.  I've never
simply "assumed" that I could use at will.

I think putting the URL for the service in the component's docblock is
more than sufficient.  Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers)
to investigate and understand what they're using.

Re: [fw-general] Datagrid in Zend Framework

[Daniel Rossi]

I generally use the PEAR structures_datagrid package. I have also used  
a funnky jquery table editor plugin, so the fields are all editable  
and updated via ajax.



On 08/05/2008, at 2:11 AM, Joó Ádám wrote:


This looks neat – scaffolding and grid was already mentioned, would be
great to have a ZF component for this job. Is there any ongoing
development in this area?


Regards,
Ádám

Re: [fw-general] PDO Sqlite + Zend_DB

[Daniel Rossi]

It looks like for some reason i had to remove all the records and run  
a flush to clear the table and it loads fine. Is it because the  
database was too big perhaps ?


On 07/05/2008, at 11:49 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:


-- Daniel Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Wednesday, 07 May 2008, 02:12 PM +1000):

This is the error ive discovered

Uncaught exception 'Zend_Db_Statement_Exception' with message  
'SQLSTATE[HY000]:

General error: 10 disk I/O error'


This is an exception being thrown by pdo_sqlite; I suggest googling  
for

the message to see what potential issues may be.

My guess is it's likely a permissions issue, or a matter of the  
location
of your sqlite db file (for instance, if it's on a network share,  
there

may be potential locking issues).


On 06/05/2008, at 5:57 PM, Daniel Rossi wrote:


   Hi there I have noticed a major performance issue when using PDO  
SQlite
   with Zend_DB. When I have a certain sqlite function enabled  
which adds  a
   temporary key to the sqlite database and then reads the  
temporary key on
   another system the cpu resources of apache are quite high. This  
in turn has
   made the machine bottle over and cause it to reboot. When i turn  
the system
   off and send temporary session id's to the other system the cpu  
load

   reduces right away.

   Where could the problem be ? I am pretty stuck on this one ?




--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Software Architect   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zend - The PHP Company   | http://www.zend.com/

Re: [fw-general] Subdomains and Zend Framework

[Jason Qi]

Yes, I agree with you. To computer, there are no different between "www" and " 
Chicago" or "Newyork", but the name itself.

Jason.


Jerry McG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
Hi All,

I have a file system layout similar to the recommendation at
http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.controller.html#zend.controller.quickstart.go.directory
I would like to work with subdomains such as http://chicago.example.com and
http://newyork.example.com. I have added these subdomains in my Apache
virtual hosts file as well as in the Windows hosts file. Now, how can I make
subdomains work in Zend Framework. Should I create folders called Chicago
and Newyork and repeat the recommended layout within these folders?

Please guide me.

Thanks!

Jerry.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Subdomains-and-Zend-Framework-tp17125088p17125088.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

Re: [fw-general] Using Zend_Form::setElementDecorators() with Zend_Config_Xml

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

-- Ralf Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 08 May 2008, 12:08 PM +0200):
> the usage of setElementDecorators() only effects all elements that have
> been added to the form before. If I want to use other decorators than
> these "defaults" for an element, I can simple add it after the usage of
> setElementDecorators() and set the individual decorators.
> 
> Now this does not work when I use an Zend_Config_Xml object. I cannot
> declare some , then set the  values and
> afterwards declare other  in the XML file. 

Correct; elementDecorators is intercepted in setOptions(), and executed
late. The assumption is that if elementDecorators is in your
configuration, you want the setting to apply to all elements.

Additionally, I'm suspecting Zend_Config_Xml is going to collapse the
multiple 'elements' sections in your config file to a single array.

> If I try it, I get an fatal error:
> 
>   Fatal error: Call to a member function getOrder() on a non-object in
>   /home/devhost/phpmagazin/form/library/Zend/Form.php on line 824

Hmmm... Can you send some reproduce code for this?

> When I use the  Options before or after the
>  Options then the  are used for each
> element and the individual settings of  within the 
> of an element are ignored.

Correct -- see above explanation.

> The only solution is to declare all decorators for each element
> separately and resign from the usage of  with an XML
> file.
> 
> Is it possible to amend Zend_Form to pass an array of elements to
> setElementDecorators() so that individual decorator settings for an
> element are not overwritten by setElementDecorators()?

This is an interesting idea. Could you put a request in the issue
tracker for this? It would be fairly trivial to implement, and would
solve a number of the issues people have reported regarding the usage of
setElementDecorators().

-- 
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Software Architect   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zend - The PHP Company   | http://www.zend.com/

Re: [fw-general] Zend_Log writing to Zend_Platform

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

-- Joshua Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Wednesday, 07 May 2008, 04:30 PM -0700):
> So I started a new job that uses Zend Platform pretty heavily and I am a  
> relative newb to it.  My boss wants me to log to Zend Platform if  
> possible.  It would be great if I could do that from Zend_Log through a  
> Zend_Log_Writer of some sort. Is there a Zend_Log_Writer for writing to  
> the Zend Platform logs(I think they are actually called events)?
>
> Any help here would be much appreciated.

We do not currently have a log writer that writes to Zend Platform. You
should be able to create one fairly easily, however, using the Zend
Platform API; if you manage to do so, we would welcome the contribution.
:-)

-- 
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Software Architect   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zend - The PHP Company   | http://www.zend.com/

[fw-general] Subdomains and Zend Framework

[Jerry McG]

Hi All,

I have a file system layout similar to the recommendation at
http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.controller.html#zend.controller.quickstart.go.directory
I would like to work with subdomains such as http://chicago.example.com and
http://newyork.example.com. I have added these subdomains in my Apache
virtual hosts file as well as in the Windows hosts file. Now, how can I make
subdomains work in Zend Framework. Should I create folders called Chicago
and Newyork and repeat the recommended layout within these folders?

Please guide me.

Thanks!

Jerry.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Subdomains-and-Zend-Framework-tp17125088p17125088.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [fw-general] Zend_Search_Lucene and Apache Nutch

[Jani]

It would appear that despite the mention of 2.0.0 in Nutch 0.9 changelist,
it uses Lucene 2.1.0 which uses a slightly differing index.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Jani Hartikainen <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Permissions are OK - it's a windows box so should have no probs there.
>
>
> I will look into this again tomorrow and I can create the issue then.
>
>
>
>
>  (this was sent directly to my mailbox I think)
>
> Check the permissions on the index directories/files.
>
>
> --
> Eric Marden
>
>
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 22:56:09 +0300, Alexander Veremyev <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Hi Jani,
> >
> >
> > Could you create JIRA issue for this and attach to it your index? Or
> > send it to me for testing?
> >
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> >   Alexander Veremyev.
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > From: Jani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:07 PM
> > To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
> > Subject: [fw-general] Zend_Search_Lucene and Apache Nutch
> >
> >
> > I've been trying to figure out whether it's possible to use
> > Zend_Search_Lucene in combination with Apache Nutch,
> > which has a crawler and it can parse out a lot of formats like HTML, PDF
> > etc. so it would be perfect for my case.
> >
> > The docs say Zend_Search_Lucene supports Lucene index formats 1.9 to
> > 2.0, and according to the change
> > list for the latest Nutch version (0.9), Nutch uses Lucene 2.0.0, but
> > for some reason I haven't been able to get ZSL to
> > open the indexes.
> >
> > When trying to open() the index, ZSL fails with Fatal error: Uncaught
> > exception 'Zend_Search_Lucene_Exception' with message 'File
> > 'data/index/_0.cfs' is not readable.'
> >
> >
> > Anyone got any insight to this matter? Or perhaps a separate crawler
> > solution to suggest?
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1418 - Release Date:
> > 06.05.2008 17:17
> >
> >
>

[fw-general] Zend_Form_Element Metadata & Attributes

[Ramon de la Fuente]

Hi All,

Fiddling around with Zend_Form_Element and extending it I created a 
F500_Form_Element_File (temporary, untill Zend one finally comes 
around...). I also added a decorator called "Progress" to automatically 
add the needed HTML for an upload  progress bar, but in doing so I need 
some extra parameters - which automatically end up in the type="file"> tag...


formid="fileupload" statustemplate="status template #{complete} of 
#{total}: #{percent}%">


I found the following in the manual:
"By default, all attributes are passed to the view helper used by the 
element during rendering, and rendered as HTML attributes of the element 
tag."


I also found an issue in the tracker already:
http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-3052

Is there currently any way to avoid the attributes getting set in the 
element tag?
(I have implemented it in the Progress decorator with a 
$_blacklistedAttributes for now but I wanted to ask if there is a more 
"general" way...)


Kind regards,


Ramon

ps: for those interested - my code was based on an exellent article I 
found regarding file uploads and progress bars: 
http://www.phpriot.com/articles/php-ajax-file-uploads

It depends on APC, and utilizes the prototype javascript library...

[fw-general] Custom view helper and auto detecting directory

[Robert Castley]

Hi,
 
This is probably more of a PHP than ZF question, but I am hoping some can
help :-)
 
I have a custom view helper class for widgets that live outside the MVC
structure i.e.
 
htdocs
  application
controllers
models
views
...
  library
Magik
  View
Helper
  WidgetMessage.php
  View.php
...
   widgets
 MyWidget
   MyWidget.php
   MyWidget.phtml

 

class Magik_View extends Zend_View
{
public function __construct($path = null)
{
$this->addHelperPath('library' . DS . 'Magik' . DS . 'View' . DS .
'Helper' , 'Magik_View_Helper');

$this->setScriptPath($path);
}

}


As you can see in the above code I have to pass a path when I call the class
within my file MyWidget.php e.g.

$view = new Magik_View(dirname(__FILE__));

What I would like to be able to do is just use:

$view = new Magik_View();

So, my question is, is there anyway for my custom view helpler to be able to
automatically detect the directory that MyWidget.php is living in?

Thanks in advance,

- Robert




This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email 
Security Service and the Macro 4 plc internal virus protection system.

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Federico Cargnelutti]

Hi Till, I think you've just made my point, we should try to reduce
assumptions as much as possible.

What you said about the API key forcing the user to accept the terms and
conditions sounds great, but it's not always like that. That's why I
mentioned Audioscrobbler.



On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM, till <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Federico Cargnelutti
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (...) A user might assume that Zend has some kind (...)
>
> And that's exactly it. An assumption.
>
> Many web services forbid commercial usage with the regular API keys
> (Flickr, Google Maps, ...). In any way, what you do with the Zend
> Framework code is your responsibility, you can't expect warning flags
> all over. Those warning flags are at the website when you sign up for
> an API key (Terms of Service are usually there for a reason).
>
> Till
>

[fw-general] Using Zend_Form::setElementDecorators() with Zend_Config_Xml

[Ralf Eggert]

Hi again,

the usage of setElementDecorators() only effects all elements that have
been added to the form before. If I want to use other decorators than
these "defaults" for an element, I can simple add it after the usage of
setElementDecorators() and set the individual decorators.

Now this does not work when I use an Zend_Config_Xml object. I cannot
declare some , then set the  values and
afterwards declare other  in the XML file. If I try it, I get
an fatal error:

  Fatal error: Call to a member function getOrder() on a non-object in
  /home/devhost/phpmagazin/form/library/Zend/Form.php on line 824

When I use the  Options before or after the
 Options then the  are used for each
element and the individual settings of  within the 
of an element are ignored.

The only solution is to declare all decorators for each element
separately and resign from the usage of  with an XML
file.

Is it possible to amend Zend_Form to pass an array of elements to
setElementDecorators() so that individual decorator settings for an
element are not overwritten by setElementDecorators()?

Thanks and Best Regards,

Ralf

Re: [fw-general] Zend_Form setting element decorators with Zend_Config_Xml

[Ralf Eggert]

Hi again,

ok, solved the issue myself:


text

40
40
Name


ViewHelper


Errors



HtmlTag


div
element



Label

left




HtmlTag


div
row






Thanks anyway,

Ralf

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[till]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (...) A user might assume that Zend has some kind (...)

And that's exactly it. An assumption.

Many web services forbid commercial usage with the regular API keys
(Flickr, Google Maps, ...). In any way, what you do with the Zend
Framework code is your responsibility, you can't expect warning flags
all over. Those warning flags are at the website when you sign up for
an API key (Terms of Service are usually there for a reason).

Till

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

[Federico Cargnelutti]

True, but keep in mind that he word Zend_Feed does not contain the name of a
company, like Yahoo or Amazon. A user might assume that Zend has some kind
of agreement with them, and because no link or information is provided, he
uses it in a commercial site.

Basically Audioscrobbler (Zend_Service_Audioscrobbler) is what triggered the
debate in my company. By providing this component to our developers, they
assume that they can use it without having to read any T&C or license
agreement.

I'm aware of the restrictions when retrieving data from other sites, but
what if I deploy the Zend_Service_* components to 10 different servers,
should I assume that all our developers located in different cities know
this as well? Should I remove the Zend_Service_* components before deploying
the framework to make sure there's no confusion and no one uses them? Or
should I write some documentation to inform them about the restrictions
imposed by each Web service? And if this is the case, who is responsible of
informing me?

Regards,
Federico.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Pádraic Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
> I don't see why the Zend Framework should. It offers an implementation of
> a
> web service API which in no way impacts the licensing of content (since
> content is NOT distributed with the framework). As usual, if anyone uses a
> web service to retrieve data it is their responsibility to be aware of
> that
> data's restrictions whether they be copyrights, licenses or terms of
> usage.
>
> Take another example. What if you use Zend_Feed to retrieve entries from
> my
> blog? Is the Zend Framework responsible for informing you that all my
> content is released under a Creative Commons 3.0 license? ;)
>
> Of course not - that's your responsibility.
>
> Best regards,
> Paddy
>
>
> Federico Cargnelutti-3 wrote:
> >
> > Hi Brad
> >
> > Yes, I was referring to the consumption of the Web service, the
> component
> > itself is distributed under the new BSD licence. Some users might not
> know
> > that Audioscrobbler does not allow the use of their Web service in
> > commercial apps. A quote taken from their site:
> >
> > "If you are making a healthy profit from your site, and using this data
> to
> > enhance the site, that sounds commercial. Any queries, just get in touch
> > with us."
> >
> > I'm aware that Zend is not responsible for the use of any of the Zend
> > Framework components, the user is. So, should ZF provide information to
> > the
> > user of the T&C, license and/or any restrictions imposed by a particular
> > Web
> > service? Or a simple link to the T&C page or license?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Bradley Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Federico,
> >>
> >> I was curious as to how one could legally license a web service (unless
> >> it's through an API key that can only be obtained for non-commercial
> use)
> >> as
> >> a license does not make much sense for a web services API (a "terms of
> >> use"
> >> may make sense, not a license). So, I went and looked at the
> >> Audioscrobbler
> >> Web Services  page and
> >> it
> >> looks like technically the Audioscrobbler *content* you retrieve
> through
> >> the
> >> web service is licensed under a Creative Commons
> >> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License, not the use of the web
> >> service
> >> itself. I know this probably sounds like a trivial point, but I think
> >> it's
> >> important. I haven't used Audioscrobbler, but I imagine anyone using
> the
> >> Audioscrobbler API is an Audioscrobbler user who is aware that the
> >> content
> >> on Audioscrobbler is licensed under the Creative Commons
> >> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (or at least that it's
> >> copyrighted material) and that the API wouldn't give you any special
> >> license
> >> to this content that you wouldn't otherwise have. Perhaps someone who
> is
> >> an
> >> Audioscrobbler user can shed more light on this.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Federico Cargnelutti <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > A quick question, visiting the Audioscrobbler's site, I found out
> that
> >> > the Web service they provide is for non-commercial use only and it's
> >> > distributed under the Creative Commons
> >> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
> >> > License. No, this is a bit confusing, people/companies using the
> >> > Zend_Service_Audioscrobbler, for example, might be using their
> service
> >> > illegally without knowing it. If that's the case, I might be wrong, a
> >> couple
> >> > of questions:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Is this documented somewhere?
> >> > 2. What are the requirements, in terms of licensing, when a web
> service
> >> > is proposed?
> >> > 3. Are there any other components/services distributed with the Zend
> >> > Framework that cannot be used in commercial sites that we need to be
> >> aware
> >> > of?
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Federico.
> >>

Re: [fw-general] Datagrid in Zend Framework

[Laurent Melmoux]

Hi Filipe,

I have done it base on 3 others component:

Mmx_Data_Sort
Mmx_Data_Criterion
Mmx_Data_Pager

There is no coupling between components so you can use them 
individually. The rendering part is done as in Zend_Form : a 
__toString() method is making use of view helpers.


May be http://xyster.devweblog.org/ and Xyster_Data is worth a like look 
as component to build something upon. I haven’t time to get a closer 
look though.


A basic use case:


// Data Grid
Zend_Loader::loadClass('Mmx_Data_Grid');
// Params: grid name, filter data, sort column
$grid = new Mmx_Data_Grid('users', $_POST, @$_GET['sort']);

$grid->addElement('integer', 'user_id');
$grid->addElement('integer', 'acl_role_id');
$grid->addElement('string', 'username');
$grid->addElement('string', 'firstname');
$grid->addElement('string', 'lastname');
$grid->addElement('boolean', 'isActive');

$grid->setDefaultSort('username');

$rowsPerPage = $this->getRequest()->getParam('limit');
$currentPage = $this->getRequest()->getParam('page', 1);
$totalRows = $usersTable->count($grid->getFilterCriteria());

$grid->initPager($totalRows, $rowsPerPage, $currentPage);

// Query DB
$rows = $usersTable->fetchAll($grid->getFilterCriteria(), 
$grid->getSortCriteria(),$grid->getRowsPerPage(), $grid->getPageOffset());


$grid->populate($rows);

// Grid Renderer
$options = array(
'labels' => $this->_labels,
'pkname' => 'user_id',
'urlbase' => $this->view->url(array('page'=>'@@page@@'), null, false, 
false),
'urledit' => $this->view->url(array('action'=>'edit', 
'page'=>null)).'/@@id@@?Mmx_Back=1',
'urldelete'=> 
$this->view->url(array('action'=>'delete')).'/@@id@@?Mmx_Back=1'

);

$grid->setDecorators($options);

$this->view->grid = $grid;

--
Laurent Melmoux
Conseils et Solutions Web | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2mx - Annecy, France | http://www.2mx.fr/


Filipe Carvalho a écrit :


Hi all,

I'm looking for something like phpGrid (http://www.phpgrid.com/). Not 
so advanced... i will be happy in having out the box features like:

- Paging
- Sorting columns
- Capability to create links values of some columns

It is not hard to do it, but using model-view-controller pattern I 
can't realize how to do something clean and reusable.


Can you give some clues how to do it?

Best Regards,

Filipe Carvalho

Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issues

[Pádraic Brady]

I don't see why the Zend Framework should. It offers an implementation of a
web service API which in no way impacts the licensing of content (since
content is NOT distributed with the framework). As usual, if anyone uses a
web service to retrieve data it is their responsibility to be aware of that
data's restrictions whether they be copyrights, licenses or terms of usage.

Take another example. What if you use Zend_Feed to retrieve entries from my
blog? Is the Zend Framework responsible for informing you that all my
content is released under a Creative Commons 3.0 license? ;)

Of course not - that's your responsibility.

Best regards,
Paddy


Federico Cargnelutti-3 wrote:
> 
> Hi Brad
> 
> Yes, I was referring to the consumption of the Web service, the component
> itself is distributed under the new BSD licence. Some users might not know
> that Audioscrobbler does not allow the use of their Web service in
> commercial apps. A quote taken from their site:
> 
> "If you are making a healthy profit from your site, and using this data to
> enhance the site, that sounds commercial. Any queries, just get in touch
> with us."
> 
> I'm aware that Zend is not responsible for the use of any of the Zend
> Framework components, the user is. So, should ZF provide information to
> the
> user of the T&C, license and/or any restrictions imposed by a particular
> Web
> service? Or a simple link to the T&C page or license?
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Bradley Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Federico,
>>
>> I was curious as to how one could legally license a web service (unless
>> it's through an API key that can only be obtained for non-commercial use)
>> as
>> a license does not make much sense for a web services API (a "terms of
>> use"
>> may make sense, not a license). So, I went and looked at the
>> Audioscrobbler
>> Web Services  page and
>> it
>> looks like technically the Audioscrobbler *content* you retrieve through
>> the
>> web service is licensed under a Creative Commons
>> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License, not the use of the web
>> service
>> itself. I know this probably sounds like a trivial point, but I think
>> it's
>> important. I haven't used Audioscrobbler, but I imagine anyone using the
>> Audioscrobbler API is an Audioscrobbler user who is aware that the
>> content
>> on Audioscrobbler is licensed under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (or at least that it's
>> copyrighted material) and that the API wouldn't give you any special
>> license
>> to this content that you wouldn't otherwise have. Perhaps someone who is
>> an
>> Audioscrobbler user can shed more light on this.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Federico Cargnelutti <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > A quick question, visiting the Audioscrobbler's site, I found out that
>> > the Web service they provide is for non-commercial use only and it's
>> > distributed under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
>> > License. No, this is a bit confusing, people/companies using the
>> > Zend_Service_Audioscrobbler, for example, might be using their service
>> > illegally without knowing it. If that's the case, I might be wrong, a
>> couple
>> > of questions:
>> >
>> > 1. Is this documented somewhere?
>> > 2. What are the requirements, in terms of licensing, when a web service
>> > is proposed?
>> > 3. Are there any other components/services distributed with the Zend
>> > Framework that cannot be used in commercial sites that we need to be
>> aware
>> > of?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Federico.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bradley Holt
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
> 
> 


-
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.patternsforphp.com
OpenID Europe Foundation - Irish Representative
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Web-services---licensing-issues-tp17100104p17122421.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[fw-general] Zend_Form setting element decorators with Zend_Config_Xml

[Ralf Eggert]

Hi,

when I set element decorators with the setDecorators() method using an
array I get a different output than doing the same with a
Zend_Config_Xml object.

--
Using:

$name->setDecorators(array(
'ViewHelper',
'Errors',
array(array('data' => 'HtmlTag'),
  array('tag' => 'div', 'class' => 'element')),
array('Label', array('class' => 'left')),
array(array('row' => 'HtmlTag'),
  array('tag' => 'div', 'class' => 'row')),
));

produces output:


Name





--
Using an xml file:


text

40
40
Name


ViewHelper


Errors


HtmlTag

div
element



Label

left



HtmlTag

div
row






produces output:

Name




--

It seems as if the declaration of the "row" decorator overwrites the
declaration of the "data" decorator.

How do I need to declare the decorators in the xml file to get the same
result as above?

Thanks and best regards,

Ralf