What is the status of the symfony-forge.com application? Is the source checked in somewhere we can collaborate? If so, who has time and what else needs to be done?
Also, I think we should be getting rid of plugins that simply wrap another library, but do not provide any added functionality. Instead I think we should create twiki pages for current best of breed third party libraries. For example on how to use Swift Mailer for sending email, or using zend framework web services. Maybe not, maybe plugins are a way of keeping versions up to date (upgrading pear packages vs svn:externals management). - Dustin On 1/4/08 7:11 PM, "Jonathan Wage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have started the naming pattern of cs(centresource) and jw(jwage) > for my plugin. Soon I will rename and clean up all my plugins. > > Symfony-forge will have tagging and search features. A lot of the > organization issues will be solved with a proper application to manage > all of this information. We can then collaborate easier and have > quality control in place. > > On 1/4/08, Dustin Whittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> As I see it, we should use prefixes as a pseudo namespace (ie: model >> classes). As for the prefix being the authors initials, that was meant as >> just an example. In regards to dealing with teams, a plugin name should not >> be about ego or ownership... If I contribute a plugin, I regard it as if the >> community owns it and I am simply a maintainer/developer (as in the process >> is a collaborative effors and all ideas are welcome). >> >> >> I think plugins in symfony-forge should have tags / organizational >> structure. Also, I think dependencies should be dealt with like they are now >> sfPropel|sfDoctine (or not with another prefix)... If there are real package >> dependencies, they should be defined in the pear package. >> >> As for people developing similar plugins (ie: facebook, flickr, etc).. I >> think people should combine efforts and produce one high quality plugin. >> >> We should all work together as we can.. If you are interested in >> contributing to an existing plugin, contact the author and commit your >> changes. Do not however, just attach a new version to a forum thread, or add >> your new version to the plugin wiki page. We should collaborate. >> >> Also, I think that once you have contributed a plugin using a prefix, than >> you own that prefix. The prefix should be two or three characters long >> (maybe just two?). >> >> - Dustin >> >> >> On 1/4/08 2:40 PM, "tobi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> I think that tags etc will be part of sf-forge or? >>> i like the idea of the prefixes for the plugins >>> sf official plugins (maybe as fabien said before with a bit of qa) >>> and prefixes for developers / companies. >>> >>> just my 2 cents >>> tobi >>> >>> On Jan 4, 10:02 pm, Loïc Vernet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Can't we just "tag" the plugins ? >>>> "propel" , "doctrine" , "jquery" ... >>>> and keep "sf" prefix for core plugins and no prefix for others ? >>>> >>>> Or perhaps we could do a plugin tree like Pear, ex sfLightboxPlugin >>>> could be named JS_Lightbox or something like that .. ? >>>> >>>> ----- Message d'origine ---- >>>> De : Bernhard Schussek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> À : [email protected] >>>> Envoyé le : Vendredi, 4 Janvier 2008, 21h39mn 25s >>>> Objet : [symfony-devs] Re: Moving towards 1.1 - Migrating Plugins >>>> >>>> I do think that prefixes are necessary. The simpliest case is that a >>>> user has a model class with the same name as a class in a plugin. >>>> >>>> I agree though that one single prefix for all unofficial plugins might >>>> do. >>>> >>>> Bernhard >>>> >>>> 2008/1/4, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Friday, January 4, 2008: >>>> >>>>>> Bernhard Schussek wrote: >>>>>>> Especially if we are enforcing high-quality plugins (= longer >>>>>>> development time), we have to make sure that development prefixes >>>>>>> don't suddenly get "invalid" as someone else released a plugin >>>> with >>>>>>> the same prefix. >>>> >>>>>> Also, a prefix which consists of the authors initials seems a bit >>>> wrong >>>>>> to me - what happens when that author retires from the project, or >>>> the >>>>>> project is developed more by someone else in the future, we >>>> shouldn't >>>>> go >>>>>> going down a path that might lead to people renaming plug ins in the >>>>> future. >>>> >>>>>> I agree with removing the 'sf' - maybe a standard unofficial prefix >>>> is >>>>>> all that's needed... 'usf' perhaps? Or course, this does leave the >>>>>> problem with, for example, having 2 facebook plugins. >>>> >>>>> Why do we need prefixes at all? Seems to me, the reason for the sf >>>>> prefix is to identify those plugins supported by the symfony core >>>> team. >>>>> Once we get away from that, there's no need for prefixes is there? >>>> >>>>> The elimination of prefixes addresses pookey's concerns and possibly >>>>> makes it easier for users searching for plugins to more readily >>>> identify >>>>> those created by the symfony core team. >>>> >>>>> Charley >>>> >>>> >>>> >> _____________________________________________________________________________ >>>> Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! >>>> Mailhttp://mail.yahoo.fr >>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
