sounds interesting. We already started discussing a framework
component a longer time ago in eZ Components. This component was meant
to provide integration for the components, like scaffolding scripts.
Having a complete framework on basis of Zeta would be a step in a
similar direction.
if you ask me, ZC is very good because you know what it is. Looking at
f. e. Cocoon which has way to much faces i always felt it does to
much. However, if you like the framework - we are willing to let
people in. One of our drawbacks is that we are a small team :-)
On the other hand, PIWI does to much - f. e. we have implemented a
small DI container. Its pretty easy and fine, but basically it would
fit more at ZC than in a webframework. A webframework should only
provide classes which are necessary for webworking. If there is no DI
container in ZC, Piwi could contribute such a component to ZC
OK would like to hear you opinions on the prefix change.
We discussed this issue before actually proposing Zeta to the ASF in the
round which is the PMC today. I can fully understand your arguments in
favor of a class prefix change. However, we decided against. Of course,
if the community desires it, we can have a vote again on this issue, but
I doubt any of the PMCs will vote for a change.
Thats not a problem, justed wanted to know what the status is. I
wanted to avoid to start with efford and then break everything up
because of class prefix change.
However, I don't see it the last chance to make a change. One day, we
will be in the need of releasing 2.0 versions of our components and I
don't see this step too far away (maybe a year?), since PHP 5.3
establishes more and more. With this step, we can switch directly from a
class prefix to namespaces, which would actually render this change
superfluous.
+1
Thanks for the info!
Christian
