Here is more information Dakota : http://www.phpwact.org/pattern/model_view_controller
"Because the popular MVC framework Struts implements a combined Front Controller and Application Controller, some people assume that this is what is meant by the MVC pattern in the context of a web application. For the same reason, many descriptions of the Front Controller pattern on the web do not draw the distinction between a Front Controller and a Application Controller." On 3/20/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan Revusky wrote: > > A third point that I must make in this context is that, though, in the > > above, I am criticizing the "electoral democracy" aspects of this, I > > actually don't subscribe to the idea that an open source project is a > > one man-one vote democracy of any sort anyway. For example, in the > > FreeMarker project, the opinion of somebody who has made some tiny > > contribution to the code (and is thus a "committer") cannot be > > considered equal to mine, when simply most of the current core code base > > was written by me. And thus, the idea that this person's vote is equal > > to mine strikes me as absurd. It would be equally absurd if I joined > > another project, and after making a nominal contribution, considered > > that my vote was equal to that of someone who had written, say, 80% of > > the code. > > You might be interested in the bylaws I wrote for Java Web Parts: > > http://sourceforge.net/docman/?group_id=140728 > > Most importantly in the context of this discussion is the fact that > ANYONE who contributes AT ALL can vote and HAVE THEIR VOTE COUNT. > Non-contributors can vote too, but are non-binding (I am considering > changing this). > > I have a weighting system for how peoples' votes count... "contributors" > count as 1, "developers" (aka committers) count as 1.5 and > "administrators" (aka the PMC) count as 2. The only requirement is that > a person be subscribed to the mailing list, since all voting takes place > there. There is a formula used to calculate the final result of a vote, > and simple majority carries the vote. > > By the way, the definition of "contributor" is "anyone that contributes > to JWP". I probably should refine that definition a bit :) But, the > point is that I wanted it to be a very low barrier of entry, so even if > you just point out a batch of spelling errors in the documentation, you > would be considered a contributor and get a counted vote. > > I bet some of the people on the contributors list don't even know they > have a vote! :) In truth though, we have yet to have an actual vote on > anything, so I suppose it's all untested. > > The voting system is perhaps a bit convoluted, but I tried to write it > in such a way that no one person, INCLUDING ME, could grab control of > the project. There is also veto power on all votes, and more > importantly, an override provision... for instance, while I as an > Administrator can veto any vote, either of the other two developers can > call for an override vote. I of course cannot vote in the override > vote, and if my veto is overridden, that's the final word, I cannot > override the veto. > > I have no doubt there are flaws in my system, but my goal was to give > everyone a voice, and to ensure that the will of the majority would be > done no matter what. > > Frank > > -- > Frank W. Zammetti > Founder and Chief Software Architect > Omnytex Technologies > http://www.omnytex.com > AIM: fzammetti > Yahoo: fzammetti > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Java Web Parts - > http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net > Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Alexandre Poitras Québec, Canada --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
