Re: [fw-general] ZF 2 and project structure
Hello, I think that one big advantage of zf actually is to be very flexible with project structure and we have the liberty to choose a hierarchy that fit at best with our internal logic and development habits. Depending on project we don't have the same structure. And i like to be able to map my own namespaces to some root directories. IMHO, namespaces are a POO matter but project structure is organisation of files.For example, if the structure fit exactly the namespaces logic, i will not be able to do : app/ domain/ entities/ User.php -- namespace Entity; And that means the end of the project structure flexibility. That's a choice, but the good one ? I'm not sure, i don't even know, that's why i bring this question up :) From there, the problem is that namespaces as they were introduced in PHP 5.3 can't be considered as packages like many other languages. br, Benjamin. 2010/8/30 Ralph Schindler ralph.schind...@zend.com Interesting you bring this up. Currently, nothing like this has been decided yet. First we need to get the autoloading strategy in place, then beyond that start working on an MVC (Front Controller, View, Layout, etc) prototype. Personally, I've started favoring the former of what you suggested: Application/Controller/Index.php - Application\Controller\Index Over the years, I've come to dislike complex mappings and plural names. Plural names don't generally translate well in other languages.. also and the question ultimately becomes if the word is referring to the collection of things or the domain of the things. I've personally favored the latter since it is more explicit, requires no pluralization, and is generally easier to map when mapping is needed. For example: The user table vs. The users table The Controller directory vs. The controllers directory It is generally understood that a table is already a collection of rows, and a directory is a collection of files. The name thus referrers to the domain of the collection of things, hence the user. Also, when users is pluralized, it introduces the question of possessiveness. Singular, IMO, solves all those problems, and keeps a 1-1 conceptual mapping to all of the concepts involved. I know this could be argued either way, and I am sure people are pretty passionate about the scheme here. This I'm sure will be discussed more in the near future ;) My 2c submitted, -ralph On 8/30/10 11:34 AM, dbenjamin wrote: Hello, I have some question regarding project structure with ZF 2 and the namespaces. It seems that with ZF 2 you wish to keep the PEAR conventions where each part of a namespace corresponds to a node into directory structure. But even with ZF1, if we look at a default project structure, the ZF autoloader maps some basic namepaces to directories into the project, so it's not really PEAR-like, or we should have something like : Application/ Controller/ Index.php-- class Application_Controller_Index instead of : application/ controllers/ IndexController.php-- class IndexController I was wondering if you planned to keep going that way or planned to propose a new project structure which fit better with these conventions ? br, Benjamin.
Re: [fw-general] ZF 2 and project structure
I believe fixing the controller class names was planned for 2.0, but I could be wrong. -- *Hector Virgen* Sr. Web Developer Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online http://www.virgentech.com On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:34 AM, dbenjamin bd.web...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have some question regarding project structure with ZF 2 and the namespaces. It seems that with ZF 2 you wish to keep the PEAR conventions where each part of a namespace corresponds to a node into directory structure. But even with ZF1, if we look at a default project structure, the ZF autoloader maps some basic namepaces to directories into the project, so it's not really PEAR-like, or we should have something like : Application/ Controller/ Index.php -- class Application_Controller_Index instead of : application/ controllers/ IndexController.php -- class IndexController I was wondering if you planned to keep going that way or planned to propose a new project structure which fit better with these conventions ? br, Benjamin. -- View this message in context: http://zend-framework-community.634137.n4.nabble.com/ZF-2-and-project-structure-tp2400401p2400401.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] ZF 2 and project structure
Interesting you bring this up. Currently, nothing like this has been decided yet. First we need to get the autoloading strategy in place, then beyond that start working on an MVC (Front Controller, View, Layout, etc) prototype. Personally, I've started favoring the former of what you suggested: Application/Controller/Index.php - Application\Controller\Index Over the years, I've come to dislike complex mappings and plural names. Plural names don't generally translate well in other languages.. also and the question ultimately becomes if the word is referring to the collection of things or the domain of the things. I've personally favored the latter since it is more explicit, requires no pluralization, and is generally easier to map when mapping is needed. For example: The user table vs. The users table The Controller directory vs. The controllers directory It is generally understood that a table is already a collection of rows, and a directory is a collection of files. The name thus referrers to the domain of the collection of things, hence the user. Also, when users is pluralized, it introduces the question of possessiveness. Singular, IMO, solves all those problems, and keeps a 1-1 conceptual mapping to all of the concepts involved. I know this could be argued either way, and I am sure people are pretty passionate about the scheme here. This I'm sure will be discussed more in the near future ;) My 2c submitted, -ralph On 8/30/10 11:34 AM, dbenjamin wrote: Hello, I have some question regarding project structure with ZF 2 and the namespaces. It seems that with ZF 2 you wish to keep the PEAR conventions where each part of a namespace corresponds to a node into directory structure. But even with ZF1, if we look at a default project structure, the ZF autoloader maps some basic namepaces to directories into the project, so it's not really PEAR-like, or we should have something like : Application/ Controller/ Index.php-- class Application_Controller_Index instead of : application/ controllers/ IndexController.php-- class IndexController I was wondering if you planned to keep going that way or planned to propose a new project structure which fit better with these conventions ? br, Benjamin.
Re: [fw-general] ZF 2 and project structure
Hi Yue, There is a milestone release of 2.0. Should you use it? I would not use it for a real application anytime soon.. 1.x is still the tried, tested, and truely stable release to use for app development. The API is and will be over the next few milestones a moving target. After it has been finalized we'll be working on migration tools and compatibility layers. More info on it here, including the current codebase as well as dev milestones and dev documents linked: http://devzone.zend.com/article/12385 Cheers, Ralph On 8/30/10 11:44 AM, Yue Yuanyuan wrote: do we have the download version of 2.0 now? When could it be available? If there are big changes, should I continue using 1.x? Thank you. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM, dbenjamin bd.web...@gmail.com mailto:bd.web...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have some question regarding project structure with ZF 2 and the namespaces. It seems that with ZF 2 you wish to keep the PEAR conventions where each part of a namespace corresponds to a node into directory structure. But even with ZF1, if we look at a default project structure, the ZF autoloader maps some basic namepaces to directories into the project, so it's not really PEAR-like, or we should have something like : Application/ Controller/ Index.php -- class Application_Controller_Index instead of : application/ controllers/ IndexController.php -- class IndexController I was wondering if you planned to keep going that way or planned to propose a new project structure which fit better with these conventions ? br, Benjamin. -- View this message in context: http://zend-framework-community.634137.n4.nabble.com/ZF-2-and-project-structure-tp2400401p2400401.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
