[zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ladies and gentlemen, I'm proud to announce that our new SVN space is up and running under https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/zetacomponents/ Now that the code is finally dropped, we may (and even must) call ourselves "Apache Zeta Components" and not only "Zeta Components" anymore. :) We also got a Fisheye to browse SVN through HTTP under http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/zetacomponents note that this is still scanning the repo right now, so not 100% functional, yet. I'll take care of managing further migration (e.g. licenses and stuff). Kore and me will take care of bringing our new website up next week and also for commiting the website source to SVN so everyone can work on it. This is basically the point where active development of the project can get started again. There is lots of stuff todo and I beg everyone to participate actively. To give you an impression, what we need to do, here a brain dump: - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered - - Assign component maintainaners (volunteers?) - - Discusss future release process - - Start fixing bugs - - Make a first official release :) Cheers, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitt tob...@schlitt.info GPG Key: 0xC462BC14 a passion for php http://schlitt.info/opensource eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxKx7IACgkQ5bO3TcRivBR2aQCgnK8Wj3Y5r4y/3fHkOQtdT8tY vl0AnAvwE5wUs9/P8b9+W9UeiIs7x8wp =Ls6k -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
Hello, great news and thanks for the hard work on this Tobias! Christian On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ladies and gentlemen, > > I'm proud to announce that our new SVN space is up and running under > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/zetacomponents/ > > Now that the code is finally dropped, we may (and even must) call > ourselves "Apache Zeta Components" and not only "Zeta Components" > anymore. :) > > We also got a Fisheye to browse SVN through HTTP under > > http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/zetacomponents > > note that this is still scanning the repo right now, so not 100% > functional, yet. > > I'll take care of managing further migration (e.g. licenses and stuff). > > Kore and me will take care of bringing our new website up next week and > also for commiting the website source to SVN so everyone can work on it. > > This is basically the point where active development of the project can > get started again. There is lots of stuff todo and I beg everyone to > participate actively. > > To give you an impression, what we need to do, here a brain dump: > > - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered > - - Assign component maintainaners (volunteers?) > - - Discusss future release process > - - Start fixing bugs > - - Make a first official release :) > > Cheers, > Toby > - -- > Tobias Schlitt tob...@schlitt.info GPG Key: 0xC462BC14 > a passion for php http://schlitt.info/opensource > eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxKx7IACgkQ5bO3TcRivBR2aQCgnK8Wj3Y5r4y/3fHkOQtdT8tY > vl0AnAvwE5wUs9/P8b9+W9UeiIs7x8wp > =Ls6k > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >
Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ladies and gentlemen, > > I'm proud to announce that our new SVN space is up and running under > > Great job! Congrats ;) - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered > - - Assign component maintainaners (volunteers?) > - - Discusss future release process > - - Start fixing bugs > > MvcTools :P Cheers from Spain James -- http://jamespic.com/contact Customer is king - Le client est roi - El cliente es rey.
Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
Hi Tobias, On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ladies and gentlemen, > > I'm proud to announce that our new SVN space is up and running under > >https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/zetacomponents/ > > Now that the code is finally dropped, we may (and even must) call > ourselves "Apache Zeta Components" and not only "Zeta Components" > anymore. :) > > We also got a Fisheye to browse SVN through HTTP under > >http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/zetacomponents > > note that this is still scanning the repo right now, so not 100% > functional, yet. > > I'll take care of managing further migration (e.g. licenses and stuff). > > Kore and me will take care of bringing our new website up next week and > also for commiting the website source to SVN so everyone can work on it. > > This is basically the point where active development of the project can > get started again. There is lots of stuff todo and I beg everyone to > participate actively. > > To give you an impression, what we need to do, here a brain dump: > > - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered > - - Assign component maintainaners (volunteers?) > - - Discusss future release process > - - Start fixing bugs > - - Make a first official release :) > I can help for Cache, ConsoleTools, I'd like to help more, but I am quite busy for the moment. Cheers :) -- Jérôme Renard http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info
Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 13:00 +0200, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered I would volunteer to maintain Document & Graph - since I am the main developer of them anyways… Kind regards, Kore -- Kore Nordmann(GPG 0xDDC70BBB) - What I do: http://kore-nordmann.de/portfolio.html - Motivate me: http://wishlist.kore-nordmann.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
Hi, great news :) > To give you an impression, what we need to do, here a brain dump: > > - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered > - - Assign component maintainaners (volunteers?) > - - Discusss future release process > - - Start fixing bugs > - - Make a first official release :) When I have some more time I'll transfer some issues where I already added patches to the old bug tracker. Ok, I'll take the opportunity to start a discussion about some of my thoughts ... 1) I'm not so happy with keeping the ezc prefix. As far as I recall it wasn't really considered to change the class prefix to zeta. Ok the reasoning is valid but wouldn't this big step of moving to Apache justify the change? If we don't change it now it'll maybe stay forever ... Using the autoload files for a conversion script would be a save way to do the conversion. 2) Incubation: Maybe it would be a good idea to have some kind of incubation process for new components that must not fully comply with all (quality) requirements yet. This would maybe lower the barrier for people to contribute new components. Regards, Andreas
Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Andreas, thanks for your input. On 07/31/2010 12:57 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: >> To give you an impression, what we need to do, here a brain dump: >> >> - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered >> - - Assign component maintainaners (volunteers?) >> - - Discusss future release process >> - - Start fixing bugs >> - - Make a first official release :) > When I have some more time I'll transfer some issues where I already added > patches to the old bug tracker. Cool. :) I'll start new threads for the two additional points you mentioned. In future, please open new threads for different discussion points, to ensure people can easily scan if they are interested in a topic. Regards, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxUCPQACgkQ5bO3TcRivBSVDQCff/FtVWCmfX3q0VF/1vwvNpTC md8AnA3Jco6ji8Kmy1suXO3cYljbJnZv =Eh9r -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
Tobias Schlitt wrote: [...] To give you an impression, what we need to do, here a brain dump: - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered - - Assign component maintainaners (volunteers?) db and dbschema, if there are none other yet bye Gaetano
Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Gaetano Giunta wrote: > Tobias Schlitt wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> To give you an impression, what we need to do, here a brain dump: >> >> - - Investigate which open issues need to be transfered >> - - Assign component maintainaners (volunteers?) > I'm (maybe the only one) interrested in UserInput, if you'll assign me to it then i'll take for mission to help it evolve into a more complete and cool component for convenient form development. Regards -- http://jamespic.com/contact Customer is king - Le client est roi - El cliente es rey.
[zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 07/31/2010 12:57 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: > 1) I'm not so happy with keeping the ezc prefix. As far as I recall it > wasn't really considered to change the class prefix to zeta. Ok the > reasoning is valid but wouldn't this big step of moving to Apache justify > the change? If we don't change it now it'll maybe stay forever ... Using > the autoload files for a conversion script would be a save way to do the > conversion. we considered several ways for changing the class prefix. A fundamental requirement here is, that people must be able to migrate smoothly. BC has always been one of the major concerns of eZ Components and we want to keep it that way. Script based migration is not fully possible, due to PHP's dynamic nature. For example, if you're using call_user_func() and friends, conversion is likely to fail. We could therefore not guarantee that migration to a new class prefix works flawlessly. We also discussed several approaches of providing a BC layer for changed class prefixes, but none of them worked out. In the end, we decided to keep the class prefix in a first step: It is not that important to change it, that we might risc annoying users with migration hassle. If you have a fully functional approach to changing the class prefix, feel free to discuss it here. We are surely open for anything. :) Regards, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxUCtAACgkQ5bO3TcRivBS73wCgi4RXOxy/diRujA8Y4wVWBuci ptcAn0Mfp6CZGk5Kb4qo3OVYnf1nCHu5 =2YGk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[zeta-dev] Incubation of new components, was Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 07/31/2010 12:57 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: > 2) Incubation: Maybe it would be a good idea to have some kind of > incubation process for new components that must not fully comply with all > (quality) requirements yet. This would maybe lower the barrier for people > to contribute new components. I think that such a process is a good idea. Providing full requirements and design documentation up front is not always possible and indeed represents a quite high barrier for new contributions. We already have the experimental/ area in SVN, where such components may be developed. However, we need to define some requirements on how new component ideas might enter this experimental area, in order to avoid lots of dead code there. Regards, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxUC4YACgkQ5bO3TcRivBQi5ACfW+yz/IGeHAN3464RoR0EI2Rj AuUAoJNXVgqF7AOYJqigrvTzlWFE3Qmu =AAGP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
Hi, creating a successful new brand zeta components in my opinion also requires to change the prefix even if causes some migration pain. Am 31.07.2010 13:36, schrieb Tobias Schlitt: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 07/31/2010 12:57 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: 1) I'm not so happy with keeping the ezc prefix. As far as I recall it wasn't really considered to change the class prefix to zeta. Ok the reasoning is valid but wouldn't this big step of moving to Apache justify the change? If we don't change it now it'll maybe stay forever ... Using the autoload files for a conversion script would be a save way to do the conversion. we considered several ways for changing the class prefix. A fundamental requirement here is, that people must be able to migrate smoothly. BC has always been one of the major concerns of eZ Components and we want to keep it that way. But it can also become a major annoyance when being obsessed with it ;) Script based migration is not fully possible, due to PHP's dynamic nature. For example, if you're using call_user_func() and friends, conversion is likely to fail. We could therefore not guarantee that migration to a new class prefix works flawlessly. I think the script based approach could be considered relatively safe. The call_user_func problem is obvious but I don't see it as a blocker. There are 3 major cases: 1) object method call $object = 'ezcClassName'; call_user_func( array( $object => 'method' ); 2) static class function call call_user_func( array( 'ezcClassName' => 'method' ); 3) static class function call with variable a) $className = 'ezcClassName'; call_user_func( array( $className => 'method' ); b) $className = 'ezc' . 'Class' . 'Name'; call_user_func( array( $className => 'method' ); Is the only problematic case 3b), where the class name is constructed completely dynamic worth not to change the prefix? Is it such a common use case? Maybe I am missing something really important... Regards, Andreas
Re: [zeta-dev] Incubation of new components, was Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
It could also be a good opportunity to get some working code (not necessarily responding to zc standards) from people or companies who want to share. The component it self can be an aggregate of all those peaces of code. Max 2010/7/31 Tobias Schlitt > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > On 07/31/2010 12:57 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: > > > 2) Incubation: Maybe it would be a good idea to have some kind of > > incubation process for new components that must not fully comply with all > > (quality) requirements yet. This would maybe lower the barrier for people > > to contribute new components. > > I think that such a process is a good idea. Providing full requirements > and design documentation up front is not always possible and indeed > represents a quite high barrier for new contributions. > > We already have the experimental/ area in SVN, where such components may > be developed. > > However, we need to define some requirements on how new component ideas > might enter this experimental area, in order to avoid lots of dead code > there. > > Regards, > Toby > - -- > Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 > Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com > eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxUC4YACgkQ5bO3TcRivBQi5ACfW+yz/IGeHAN3464RoR0EI2Rj > AuUAoJNXVgqF7AOYJqigrvTzlWFE3Qmu > =AAGP > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
You can also call static function by : call_user_func( "ezcClassName::myFunc" ); 2010/7/31 Andreas Schamberger > Hi, > > creating a successful new brand zeta components in my opinion also requires > to change the prefix even if causes some migration pain. > > Am 31.07.2010 13:36, schrieb Tobias Schlitt: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi, >> >> On 07/31/2010 12:57 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: >> >> 1) I'm not so happy with keeping the ezc prefix. As far as I recall it >>> wasn't really considered to change the class prefix to zeta. Ok the >>> reasoning is valid but wouldn't this big step of moving to Apache justify >>> the change? If we don't change it now it'll maybe stay forever ... Using >>> the autoload files for a conversion script would be a save way to do the >>> conversion. >>> >> >> we considered several ways for changing the class prefix. A fundamental >> requirement here is, that people must be able to migrate smoothly. BC >> has always been one of the major concerns of eZ Components and we want >> to keep it that way. >> > > But it can also become a major annoyance when being obsessed with it ;) > > > Script based migration is not fully possible, due to PHP's dynamic >> nature. For example, if you're using call_user_func() and friends, >> conversion is likely to fail. We could therefore not guarantee that >> migration to a new class prefix works flawlessly. >> > > I think the script based approach could be considered relatively safe. > The call_user_func problem is obvious but I don't see it as a blocker. > > There are 3 major cases: > > 1) object method call > $object = 'ezcClassName'; > call_user_func( array( $object => 'method' ); > > 2) static class function call > call_user_func( array( 'ezcClassName' => 'method' ); > > 3) static class function call with variable >a) $className = 'ezcClassName'; > call_user_func( array( $className => 'method' ); >b) $className = 'ezc' . 'Class' . 'Name'; > call_user_func( array( $className => 'method' ); > > Is the only problematic case 3b), where the class name is constructed > completely dynamic worth not to change the prefix? Is it such a common use > case? > > Maybe I am missing something really important... > > Regards, > Andreas > >
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 07/31/2010 03:02 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: > creating a successful new brand zeta components in my opinion also > requires to change the prefix even if causes some migration pain. I don't see where the class prefix does much harm here. Where exactly do you see the problem? "Some migration pain" is what people are always annoyed for with new PHP releases where they did not realize a BC break before. BC breaks are a big nono from a business economical perspective. Especially if a project has few tests. >> On 07/31/2010 12:57 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: >>> 1) I'm not so happy with keeping the ezc prefix. As far as I recall it >>> wasn't really considered to change the class prefix to zeta. Ok the >>> reasoning is valid but wouldn't this big step of moving to Apache >>> justify >>> the change? If we don't change it now it'll maybe stay forever ... Using >>> the autoload files for a conversion script would be a save way to do the >>> conversion. >> we considered several ways for changing the class prefix. A fundamental >> requirement here is, that people must be able to migrate smoothly. BC >> has always been one of the major concerns of eZ Components and we want >> to keep it that way. > But it can also become a major annoyance when being obsessed with it ;) >> Script based migration is not fully possible, due to PHP's dynamic >> nature. For example, if you're using call_user_func() and friends, >> conversion is likely to fail. We could therefore not guarantee that >> migration to a new class prefix works flawlessly. > > I think the script based approach could be considered relatively safe. > The call_user_func problem is obvious but I don't see it as a blocker. > There are 3 major cases: > > 1) object method call >$object = 'ezcClassName'; >call_user_func( array( $object => 'method' ); What about building a class name dynamically, e.g. for some kind of dispatching, or transmitting it into a deeply nested object structure? call_user_func() is not used in cases as you show it here, but exactly for when you don't know the classname deterministically. > 2) static class function call >call_user_func( array( 'ezcClassName' => 'method' ); > 3) static class function call with variable > a) $className = 'ezcClassName'; >call_user_func( array( $className => 'method' ); > b) $className = 'ezc' . 'Class' . 'Name'; >call_user_func( array( $className => 'method' ); Same for these two cases. Nobody woul perform such a call, since the class name is known. > Is the only problematic case 3b), where the class name is constructed > completely dynamic worth not to change the prefix? Is it such a common > use case? Exactly this is the common case for uses of call_user_func() and friends, as well as simply doing $foo = new $class(); Migration is not possible on a pure script basis. There are people out there relying their business on the use of our library. Regards, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxUMSAACgkQ5bO3TcRivBSIhgCdHG49+C3WfSfIwww0FnDjL0KI Y4UAoLBI+deK9KIh29GRZZCWxHMVijk0 =YlKU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
W dniu 2010-07-31 15:02, Andreas Schamberger pisze: Hi, creating a successful new brand zeta components in my opinion also requires to change the prefix even if causes some migration pain. Maybe giving the old prefix a new meaning could be an easier and safer approach? For example: Enterprise Zeta Components = ezc... ;) Cheers, Piotrek
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 07/31/2010 04:44 PM, Piotrek Karas wrote: > W dniu 2010-07-31 15:02, Andreas Schamberger pisze: >> creating a successful new brand zeta components in my opinion also >> requires to change the prefix even if causes some migration pain. > Maybe giving the old prefix a new meaning could be an easier and safer > approach? For example: Enterprise Zeta Components = ezc... ;) that is basically where the name "Zeta Components" orginates from. :) The "e" is ? well somewhat orphan now. Cheers, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxUN1cACgkQ5bO3TcRivBSePQCeLx1K8KR+oHqzu0vc3qBi79zX sjIAn10E5UqFb7gBiEJ6hNXRl5rqrODF =9/oD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
Hi, for me it seems wrong if I think 'zeta' and have to type 'ezc'. But maybe this is just a problem for me ;) I just wanted to have raised my concern. I'll shut up and let's forget about it ;) Regards, Andreas Am 31.07.2010 16:46, schrieb Tobias Schlitt: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 07/31/2010 04:44 PM, Piotrek Karas wrote: W dniu 2010-07-31 15:02, Andreas Schamberger pisze: creating a successful new brand zeta components in my opinion also requires to change the prefix even if causes some migration pain. Maybe giving the old prefix a new meaning could be an easier and safer approach? For example: Enterprise Zeta Components = ezc... ;) that is basically where the name "Zeta Components" orginates from. :) The "e" is ? well somewhat orphan now. Cheers, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxUN1cACgkQ5bO3TcRivBSePQCeLx1K8KR+oHqzu0vc3qBi79zX sjIAn10E5UqFb7gBiEJ6hNXRl5rqrODF =9/oD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Andreas, On 07/31/2010 05:15 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: > for me it seems wrong if I think 'zeta' and have to type 'ezc'. But > maybe this is just a problem for me ;) I fully understand your concern here and I would still be in favor of changing the prefix. However, there should be way of full BC for this and until now we did not find any. Maybe, we will come to a point where we start building Zeta 2.0 somewhen in the future. The we should migrate to using namespaces anyway and the issue will be fixed. > I just wanted to have raised my concern. I'll shut up and let's forget > about it ;) I think it was quite useful having this discussed publicly again. :) Regards, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxUT9EACgkQ5bO3TcRivBQY9ACgjegsPcUOckS8rO4qJJDZ3pzh qLEAoJ2M6Fv029DdpH47f5pWs7p2R+vm =lTFF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
Hello, On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Andreas, > > On 07/31/2010 05:15 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: > > > for me it seems wrong if I think 'zeta' and have to type 'ezc'. But > > maybe this is just a problem for me ;) > > I fully understand your concern here and I would still be in favor of > changing the prefix. However, there should be way of full BC for this > and until now we did not find any. > > Maybe, we will come to a point where we start building Zeta 2.0 somewhen > in the future. The we should migrate to using namespaces anyway and the > issue will be fixed. > > > I just wanted to have raised my concern. I'll shut up and let's forget > > about it ;) > > I think it was quite useful having this discussed publicly again. :) > Both options (keeping and updating the ezc prefix) have both pro and cons and as far as I am concerned I have no preference. However I think it is important not to confuse ZC users and as such I would recommend to provide some kind of FAQ explaining why the prefix is ezc for now, and what are (of any) plans for the future. Maybe a full page explaining the history of ZC, from eZ Components to Zeta Components would help clarify the context for new users. I can write such a page if you want. Confused users became generally unhappy user after some period users, and that we should definitely try to avoid. What do you think ? My 0.02 cents, -- Jérôme Renard http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info
Re: [zeta-dev] Incubation of new components, was Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > I think that such a process is a good idea. Providing full requirements > and design documentation up front is not always possible and indeed > represents a quite high barrier for new contributions. However, providing the idea and what you're trying to solve is a good thing to have. This is exactly what the requirements document was supposed to be. Design is of course different. I don't think we should give up the "requirements" part. > We already have the experimental/ area in SVN, where such components > may be developed. > > However, we need to define some requirements on how new component ideas > might enter this experimental area, in order to avoid lots of dead code > there. We can always delete it :-) Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jerome, On 07/31/2010 06:53 PM, Jerome Renard wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Tobias Schlitt wrote: >> Hi Andreas, >> On 07/31/2010 05:15 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: >>> for me it seems wrong if I think 'zeta' and have to type 'ezc'. But >>> maybe this is just a problem for me ;) >> I fully understand your concern here and I would still be in favor of >> changing the prefix. However, there should be way of full BC for this >> and until now we did not find any. >> >> Maybe, we will come to a point where we start building Zeta 2.0 somewhen >> in the future. The we should migrate to using namespaces anyway and the >> issue will be fixed. >>> I just wanted to have raised my concern. I'll shut up and let's forget >>> about it ;) >> >> I think it was quite useful having this discussed publicly again. :) > Both options (keeping and updating the ezc prefix) have both pro and cons > and as far as I am concerned > I have no preference. However I think it is important not to confuse ZC > users and as such I would recommend to > provide some kind of FAQ explaining why the prefix is ezc for now, and what > are (of any) plans for the future. > Maybe a full page explaining the history of ZC, from eZ Components to Zeta > Components would help clarify > the context for new users. I can write such a page if you want. sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should add a general FAQ to our website, which covers such points? Cheers, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxWgicACgkQ5bO3TcRivBQhuQCfRmsDOwQF8JS+8tcYXVg6D1IJ 7Y8AnAhYhjjrPHFGHvxvy+mrM0kP/7c4 =jWvJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Incubation of new components, was Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 08/01/2010 07:24 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Tobias Schlitt wrote: >> I think that such a process is a good idea. Providing full requirements >> and design documentation up front is not always possible and indeed >> represents a quite high barrier for new contributions. > However, providing the idea and what you're trying to solve is a good > thing to have. This is exactly what the requirements document was > supposed to be. Design is of course different. I don't think we should > give up the "requirements" part. I would stick to requiring both, requirements and design documentation, before a component migrates from experimental/ to trunk/. However, for just getting started in experimental/, both documents must not be final yet. An initial component proposal should should describe the idea behind it on the ML anyway. >> We already have the experimental/ area in SVN, where such components >> may be developed. >> >> However, we need to define some requirements on how new component ideas >> might enter this experimental area, in order to avoid lots of dead code >> there. > We can always delete it :-) That is true. :) Cheers, Toby - -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxWgqwACgkQ5bO3TcRivBTprgCfTpVsVFbStTRSSlAWMncksn+p 0WMAnRzgSW9/sfjYWoKj0OXWSN1L32kp =ts+N -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :)
Tobias, On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jerome, > [...] > > > Both options (keeping and updating the ezc prefix) have both pro and cons > > and as far as I am concerned > > I have no preference. However I think it is important not to confuse ZC > > users and as such I would recommend to > > provide some kind of FAQ explaining why the prefix is ezc for now, and > what > > are (of any) plans for the future. > > Maybe a full page explaining the history of ZC, from eZ Components to > Zeta > > Components would help clarify > > the context for new users. I can write such a page if you want. > > sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should add a general FAQ to our > website, which covers such points? > Yes, I think that would be a great help for ZC users. Cheers, -- Jérôme Renard http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info
[zeta-dev] Piwi and ZC (was: Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :))
Hello, a friend of mine and I wrote a framework together. I have the strong feeling that PIWI should be based on ZC in near future since it offers solutions for much problems we have. Additionally ZC can help PIWI to concentrate on its maingoal. Maybe there is a chance to pull out a few classes, level it to ZC quality standarts and include them there. This being done, the next logical step after rebuilding PIWI on the back of ZC would be to propose the framework to Apache. However I would like to know if there has been a decision meanwhile on the prefix issue (see below). I would like to avoid to include ZC before this change has been done, if it is going to happen. My preference is to change it. Its basically a complete rebrand and when ZC offers some kind of helper script for users to at least announce the files which use the wrong prefix, everything should be pretty ok. I also think it's the last chance to do such a change. When the next release is out people will claim about backwards compatiblity. OK would like to hear you opinions on the prefix change. Cheers Christian >> > Both options (keeping and updating the ezc prefix) have both pro and cons >> > and as far as I am concerned >> > I have no preference. However I think it is important not to confuse ZC >> > users and as such I would recommend to >> > provide some kind of FAQ explaining why the prefix is ezc for now, and >> what >> > are (of any) plans for the future. >> > Maybe a full page explaining the history of ZC, from eZ Components to >> Zeta >> > Components would help clarify >> > the context for new users. I can write such a page if you want. >> >> sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should add a general FAQ to our >> website, which covers such points? >> > > Yes, I think that would be a great help for ZC users. > > Cheers, > > -- > Jérôme Renard > http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info > -- http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [zeta-dev] Piwi and ZC (was: Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :))
Christian, On 08/19/2010 01:40 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > a friend of mine and I wrote a framework together. I have the strong > feeling that PIWI should be based on ZC in near future since it offers > solutions for much problems we have. Additionally ZC can help PIWI to > concentrate on its maingoal. Maybe there is a chance to pull out a few > classes, level it to ZC quality standarts and include them there. This > being done, the next logical step after rebuilding PIWI on the back of > ZC would be to propose the framework to Apache. 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. > However I would like to know if there has been a decision meanwhile on > the prefix issue (see below). I would like to avoid to include ZC > before this change has been done, if it is going to happen. > My preference is to change it. Its basically a complete rebrand and > when ZC offers some kind of helper script for users to at least > announce the files which use the wrong prefix, everything should be > pretty ok. I also think it's the last chance to do such a change. When > the next release is out people will claim about backwards > compatiblity. > 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. 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. Regards, Toby -- Tobias Schlitthttp://schlitt.infoGPG Key: 0xC462BC14 Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?http://qafoo.com eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn
Re: [zeta-dev] Piwi and ZC (was: Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :))
> 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
Re: [zeta-dev] Piwi and ZC (was: Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :))
Hello everyone, On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 13:40 +0200, Christian Grobmeier wrote: [...] > However I would like to know if there has been a decision meanwhile on > the prefix issue (see below). I would like to avoid to include ZC > before this change has been done, if it is going to happen. > > My preference is to change it. Its basically a complete rebrand and > when ZC offers some kind of helper script for users to at least > announce the files which use the wrong prefix, everything should be > pretty ok. I also think it's the last chance to do such a change. When > the next release is out people will claim about backwards > compatiblity. > > OK would like to hear you opinions on the prefix change. I think this is a 100% no go for a product that claims to be enterprisy. Even when I would like to see namespaces, instead of this annoying prefixes, I would not recommend to do such a BC break. I have used several components of eZ/Zeta in many projects during the lastfive years and such a change will break all of them or they cannot be updated. I am really sure that most of project owners are not willing to pay for this refactoring, at least not in the next few weeks/months. In my opinion such a critical BC-break would let many(maybe most) users leave the project, because what can I expect from a project in the long-term, when these changes are done adhoc, without a long-tail-support phase. Just my 2 cent Manuel
Re: [zeta-dev] Piwi and ZC (was: Re: [zeta-dev] Re: Class prefix change, was: Re: [zeta-dev] Welcome Apache Zeta Components - SVN up and running :))
On 19. aug. 2010, at 13.40, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hello, > > a friend of mine and I wrote a framework together. I have the strong > feeling that PIWI should be based on ZC in near future since it offers > solutions for much problems we have. Additionally ZC can help PIWI to > concentrate on its maingoal. Maybe there is a chance to pull out a few > classes, level it to ZC quality standarts and include them there. This > being done, the next logical step after rebuilding PIWI on the back of > ZC would be to propose the framework to Apache. > > However I would like to know if there has been a decision meanwhile on > the prefix issue (see below). I would like to avoid to include ZC > before this change has been done, if it is going to happen. > > My preference is to change it. Its basically a complete rebrand and > when ZC offers some kind of helper script for users to at least > announce the files which use the wrong prefix, everything should be > pretty ok. I also think it's the last chance to do such a change. When > the next release is out people will claim about backwards > compatiblity. > > OK would like to hear you opinions on the prefix change. I would strongly oppose such a change. This will be an expensive change for all users who maintain existing applications, and there would not be any real benefit of doing that right now, especially not just for the sake of a prefix. I agree with Tobias, that it makes sense to not alter the prefixes before for instance namespaces are adopted in the codebase, along with other BC-breaking changes suitable for a 2.0. Right now, I think it is important to get a 1.0 out the door, which is compatible with eZ Components 2009.2 and thereby establish a baseline, for all existing users out there. I agree with most other points being made here, about the importance of keeping that BC intact. -- Regards, Ole Marius
