Re: HTML_QuickForm2 / new release

> > > > > We are using QF2 in a larger project >> at work and are willing to put resources into development/completion of >> features missing. >> > > While I'm certainly tempted by your offer, I have a feeling that you and > your colleagues haven't done necessary research before offering these > resources: > http://news.php.net/php.pear.general/29591 > > > The first ones (ArrayAccess to e.g. use a form easily >> in Smarty, and rules in containers) have been attached to the tracker. >> We'd like to see them released soon so that we now that a) the >> direction in which we're going is correct and b) don't have to change >> our codebase afterwards too much. >> > > "I want you to apply our changes NOW and release your package IMMEDIATELY > so that we won't be burdened by keeping a private fork with the stuff only > we need". Ni-i-i-i-ice. No, in fact, re-e-e-e-e-e-e-eally nice. > Hey, that's pretty legitimate - why spend twice the effort maintaining twice the code; if the changes are perceived to be right for quickform. cweiske certainly thinks they are; you disagree; but it comes across a little bit harshly. I believe the correct way to deal with this kind of thing is to say "I'm ducking the issue", and then insert a variety of pictures of ducks into the email conversation. http://flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=duck&m=text > > > If there is anything holding you back or when the quality of our >> patches isn't high enough, just let me know and we do the best we can >> to meet your requirements. >> > > The ArrayAccess patch > > > http://pear.php.net/bugs/patch-display.php?bug=15618&patch=HTML_QuickForm2.diff&revision=1231774581 > violates the Principle of Least Surprise severely: > > $form['foo'] = 'text'; > echo gettype($form['foo']); // Will output "object". WTF? > I would suggest that developer expectations would change over time as more and more users because used to the spl. Can we see more intended use patterns / examples? Can we see more examples of odd/surprising behaviour? Would providing these examples in the package documentation under a 'neat but surprising tricks' section mitigate the least-surprise factor? Could the unit tests method names be made more informative (ie, testShouldActLikeAnArray() { /* .. */ } (agile documentation) ? The Rule for Containers patch > > > http://pear.php.net/bugs/patch-display.php?bug=15619&patch=Rule_Compare_for_Container.diff&revision=1231775394 > does exactly the same: > > If I do a > $container->addRule('lt', 'Should be less that 4', 4); > > Do i expect > 1) Container to contain less than 4 non empty elements? > 2) Value of each element's in Container to be less than 4? > 3) Sum of Container's elements' values to be less than 4? > > now, fellow developers, think a bit and either read the patch or scroll > down > I don't get it. I don't know QF2 well enough; so reading the patch didn't make much sense. Can we have more context / expanded examples? The correct solution to the Smarty problem is of course an implementation of > (some kind of) Array renderer, the correct solution of Rule for Containers > problem is, probably, implementation of some kind of iterator for Rules. If > you want to discuss the implementation details for these, then let's start > by *discussing*, if you want to continue providing valuable contributions of > the above quality and make demands, then you are better off with a fork. I > even promise to vote for it if you propose it to PEAR. > I can has psuedocode for the above two?