Re: Package Proposal: MVCnPHP

Martin Jansen wrote:

On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 16:08, Tony Bibbs wrote:

While this may be considered a type of framework, I don't believe it is a framework in the sense that Stig was thinking in that email (though I could very well be wrong). In fact this is no more a framework than things like HTML_Template_Flexy and other template systems. I say so because just like those template libraries, MVCnPHP has no real value until an application starts using it.

You're right in your argumentation. Thus I think that I'm +1 for your proposal. Apart from that we should take that we don't clutter the source tree with other MVC packages, like it has happened with HTML Templates, e.g., but that MVCnPHP should become the "standard" for PEAR.

i dont think this is the right way. OK we want to prevent multiple packages which do the same. But if you define *this* very MVC package is 'the one' then only you will send the people off, who want to use others. Sorry, but also for MVC frameworks there are different approaches. See http://phrame.itsd.ttu.edu/ (Struts port) http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpmvc/ and why should we go and forbid that for MVC's if we dont forbid it for Templates ... I also started to use phrame once, but i saw that it wasn't really what I needed. the old topic again :-) -- Wolfram ... opensource @ vision:produktion ... http://opensource.visionp.de ... translating template engine .... http://sf.net/projects/simpletpl ... authentication system .... http://sf.net/projects/auth