RE: [PEAR-DEV] Package Proposal: MVCnPHP

> From: Wolfram Kriesing [mailto:wolfram@visionp.de] > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 6:19 PM > 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 :-) Lets just say we should not let earlier mistakes force us to do the same mistakes again. Template engines in PEAR are a total mess. I guess this will be discussed at the PEAR meeting. My 2 cents are that PEAR packages should be in some kind of hierarchy: - PFC - Working towards PFC - The rest (packages still in early stages, packages that never should have been separate packages but who need a place to live in order to not piss of the users etc.) But we will see at the pear meeting how things goes. For this package I would be thankful if everyone took the time and looked at the code, give us URL like wolfram to alternative packages etc. If the proposed package does become our MVC package then there is nothing to say that it can't be extended in the future. However it will probably heavily influence how we can continue in this area in the future and therefore this decision should not be made lightly. At some point we may even do a rewrite aka MVC 2.0 but we should always try to get as much BC as possible down to road. Regards, Lukas