Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
51 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

Benjamin Eberlei-2
Hello everyone,

I just want to inform everyone that I will discontinue development
on Zend Entity and in return invest time to integrate Doctrine with
Zend Framework on a large scale. I changed my mind for several reasons

1. It drains up all my free time and I got quite a blockade from it.
2. I am the only major contributor, and compared to Doctrine 2 the feature set
   is probably only at 50-60%.
3. A realistic estimate for a first production ready release of Zend Entity
   would be 4-6 month, a time where ZF is probably starting to think heavily
   of PHP 5.3 adoption in regards with the 2.0 release. This is not a good
   time for another major component that starts of in 1.x

I've discussed the decision with Matthew, and while we both liked
the idea of having a native ORM in ZF, we also both feel that
helping improve an existing project and providing good integration
with it will likely be better for the entire ecosystem. If you are
interested, please contact us to help us start planning this
initiative.

I hope this step isn't a disappointment to anyone, personally I had lots of
fun developing Zend Entity and learnt quite a bit that I can hopefully
contribute to Doctrine also. Also special thanks to all those that offered
help, feedback and contributions.

greetings,
Benjamin
--
Benjamin Eberlei
http://www.beberlei.de
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

ajgarlag
I'm so sorry for this decision but otherwise I know this was a hard work that you have done mostly alone.

Although the project is not finished, I congratulate you: your work has been excellent.

Do you plan to integrate Doctrine 1.x with ZF? I think that I'm not the only one tied to PHP 5.2. I hope to help with this.

--
Antonio José García Lagar
http://aj.garcialagar.es
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

weierophinney
Administrator
-- Antonio José García Lagar <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 07:24 PM +0100):
> I'm so sorry for this decision but otherwise I know this was a hard work that
> you have done mostly alone.
>
> Although the project is not finished, I congratulate you: your work has been
> excellent.
>
> Do you plan to integrate Doctrine 1.x with ZF? I think that I'm not the only
> one tied to PHP 5.2. I hope to help with this.

Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

prodigitalson
I dont know if its even possible but id really like to see some general abstraction for ORM integration that these would be based on... Just to make it easier to integrate Propel for instance.

Granted this would have to be pretty abstract given vendor differences - or even differences in major versions of the same software. Im just thinking that if i want to integrate ORM XYZ, i should general interfaces/abstractions for Model Builders, Form Builders, Loggers and what not to program to make the process just a little less daunting.

Sorry to see Zend_Entity go, but I readily welcome Doctrine :-)
 
weierophinney wrote
-- Antonio José García Lagar <aj@garcialagar.es> wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 07:24 PM +0100):
> I'm so sorry for this decision but otherwise I know this was a hard work that
> you have done mostly alone.
>
> Although the project is not finished, I congratulate you: your work has been
> excellent.
>
> Do you plan to integrate Doctrine 1.x with ZF? I think that I'm not the only
> one tied to PHP 5.2. I hope to help with this.

Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | matthew@zend.com
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

ajgarlag
In reply to this post by weierophinney
2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>

Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).

Do you think this will be available for the 1.10 release?

You should update the roadmap at http://framework.zend.com/roadmap/1.10.0

I hope to see an early proposal to start to help.
--
Antonio José García Lagar
http://aj.garcialagar.es
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

weierophinney
Administrator
In reply to this post by prodigitalson
-- prodigitalson <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 12:04 PM -0700):
> I dont know if its even possible but id really like to see some general
> abstraction for ORM integration that these would be based on... Just to make
> it easier to integrate Propel for instance.
>
> Granted this would have to be pretty abstract given vendor differences - or
> even differences in major versions of the same software. Im just thinking
> that if i want to integrate ORM XYZ, i should general
> interfaces/abstractions for Model Builders, Form Builders, Loggers and what
> not to program to make the process just a little less daunting.

While some of this may be abstractable, the fact is that even between
Doctrine and Doctrine 2 the structure of the project changed fairly
significantly. We may be able to leverage some of the work/ideas from
Symfony (which supports both), but even there, I seem to recall that the
configuration is quite different between the projects.

Additionally, for things such as model/form builders, these would be
handled by the ORM layer; at most, we might have a Zend_Tool provider
that proxies to the Doctrine CLI tooling (which can be invoked via class
methods). Loggers, etc., are typically project specific -- but one of
the points where we would like more direct integration.

If you or others want to see additional ORM solutions, write up
proposals soon, so we can start determining if there are enough
commonalities to warrant an abstraction layer within ZF.

> Sorry to see Zend_Entity go, but I readily welcome Doctrine :-)
>  
>
> weierophinney wrote:
> >
> > -- Antonio José García Lagar <[hidden email]> wrote
> > (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 07:24 PM +0100):
> >> I'm so sorry for this decision but otherwise I know this was a hard work
> >> that
> >> you have done mostly alone.
> >>
> >> Although the project is not finished, I congratulate you: your work has
> >> been
> >> excellent.
> >>
> >> Do you plan to integrate Doctrine 1.x with ZF? I think that I'm not the
> >> only
> >> one tied to PHP 5.2. I hope to help with this.
> >
> > Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
> > reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
> > Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
> > leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
> > that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
> > shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> > Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> > Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp26117819p26118942.html
> Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

weierophinney
Administrator
In reply to this post by ajgarlag
-- Antonio José García Lagar <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100):

> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>
>
>
>     Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
>     reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
>     Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
>     leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
>     that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
>     shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).
>
>
> Do you think this will be available for the 1.10 release?
>
> You should update the roadmap at http://framework.zend.com/roadmap/1.10.0
>
> I hope to see an early proposal to start to help.

We're in the very early stages of gathering requirements; I honestly
don't see it being ready for 1.10.

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

keith Pope-4
29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>:

> -- Antonio José García Lagar <[hidden email]> wrote
> (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100):
>> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>>     Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
>>     reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
>>     Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
>>     leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
>>     that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
>>     shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).

I must say its a shame that ZE is going, I thought it was too bigger a
project for one person, not fair asking for that much commitment from
anyone.

Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.....

Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide
now to not use the Data Mapper pattern and use doctrine instead?

>>
>>
>> Do you think this will be available for the 1.10 release?
>>
>> You should update the roadmap at http://framework.zend.com/roadmap/1.10.0
>>
>> I hope to see an early proposal to start to help.
>
> We're in the very early stages of gathering requirements; I honestly
> don't see it being ready for 1.10.
>
> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
>



--
------------
http://www.thepopeisdead.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

weierophinney
Administrator
-- keith Pope <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:19 PM +0000):

> 29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>:
> > -- Antonio José García Lagar <[hidden email]> wrote
> > (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100):
> >> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >>
> >>     Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
> >>     reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
> >>     Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
> >>     leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
> >>     that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
> >>     shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).
>
> I must say its a shame that ZE is going, I thought it was too bigger a
> project for one person, not fair asking for that much commitment from
> anyone.
>
> Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.....

Take a look at Doctrine 2 -- Zend_Entity and Doctrine 2 shared a very
similar design, and the models are completely de-coupled.

> Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide
> now to not use the Data Mapper pattern and use doctrine instead?

Yes, once we have integration in place. ;)

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

Benjamin Eberlei-2
In reply to this post by keith Pope-4
Hello Keith,

you should take a look at Doctrine 2. As  Zend Entity it implements the JPA
specification and is a true data mapper with models decoupled from Database
completly.

greetings,
Benjamin

On Thursday 29 October 2009 09:19:50 pm keith Pope wrote:

> 29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>:
> > -- Antonio José García Lagar <[hidden email]> wrote
> >
> > (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100):
> >> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >>
> >>     Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this
> >> very reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
> >> Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
> >> leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
> >> that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
> >> shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).
>
> I must say its a shame that ZE is going, I thought it was too bigger a
> project for one person, not fair asking for that much commitment from
> anyone.
>
> Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.....
>
> Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide
> now to not use the Data Mapper pattern and use doctrine instead?
>
> >> Do you think this will be available for the 1.10 release?
> >>
> >> You should update the roadmap at
> >> http://framework.zend.com/roadmap/1.10.0
> >>
> >> I hope to see an early proposal to start to help.
> >
> > We're in the very early stages of gathering requirements; I honestly
> > don't see it being ready for 1.10.
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> > Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> > Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/


--
Benjamin Eberlei
http://www.beberlei.de
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

keith Pope-4
2009/10/29 Benjamin Eberlei <[hidden email]>:
> Hello Keith,
>
> you should take a look at Doctrine 2. As  Zend Entity it implements the JPA
> specification and is a true data mapper with models decoupled from Database
> completly.

Looking now, I didnt think it was nearing release yet last time I
looked it seemed far off, time obviously passes too quickly hehe

Wish I didnt have to upgrade to PHP 5.3 to use it though, working on
legacy systems means its a lot of work! But too be fair it needs to be
done anyway :)

When are the integration discussions happening?

Thanks for your work on Zend_Entity its been informative watching it
develop anyway :)

>
> greetings,
> Benjamin
>
> On Thursday 29 October 2009 09:19:50 pm keith Pope wrote:
>> 29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>:
>> > -- Antonio José García Lagar <[hidden email]> wrote
>> >
>> > (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100):
>> >> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this
>> >> very reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
>> >> Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can
>> >> leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others
>> >> that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g.,
>> >> shared cache objects and loggers, etc.).
>>
>> I must say its a shame that ZE is going, I thought it was too bigger a
>> project for one person, not fair asking for that much commitment from
>> anyone.
>>
>> Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.....
>>
>> Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide
>> now to not use the Data Mapper pattern and use doctrine instead?
>>
>> >> Do you think this will be available for the 1.10 release?
>> >>
>> >> You should update the roadmap at
>> >> http://framework.zend.com/roadmap/1.10.0
>> >>
>> >> I hope to see an early proposal to start to help.
>> >
>> > We're in the very early stages of gathering requirements; I honestly
>> > don't see it being ready for 1.10.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Matthew Weier O'Phinney
>> > Project Lead            | [hidden email]
>> > Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
>
>
> --
> Benjamin Eberlei
> http://www.beberlei.de
>



--
------------
http://www.thepopeisdead.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

Georgy
I have not understood. The component will be developed by other people? Or it is discontinue for ever?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

drm-4
In reply to this post by Benjamin Eberlei-2
Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
> I just want to inform everyone that I will discontinue development
> on Zend Entity and in return invest time to integrate Doctrine with
> Zend Framework on a large scale.
Excellent decision! Though I know writing a good ORM is a very fun job
and I am sure you will miss it, I am very happy with this, because Yet
Another ORM isn't really what we needed, imho :-)

I would like to help, but I'm not sure how.


drm / Gerard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

weierophinney
Administrator
In reply to this post by Georgy
-- Georgy Turevich <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Friday, 30 October 2009, 11:31 AM +0300):
> I have not understood. The component will be developed by other people? Or it
> is discontinue for ever?

Discontinued.

All development was being done basically by Benjamin himself, and my
team is simply too small for me to provide him much additional support
without having it affect other projects. We have considered in the past
writing an ORM, and the conclusion has always been that we do not have
either enough expertise or resources on our team to undertake it. I was
willing to let it be a community effort, but it would have taken a
dedicated team of volunteers (a) to make it happen in a reasonable time
frame, and (b) to provide ongoing support for it.

Benjamin got to a point where he realized he'd finished about 50% of
functionality, and likely had another 4-6 months before it was
releasable. At that point, we'd be gearing up for ZF 2.0, which would
mean he'd need to start rewriting to make use of PHP 5.3 features. It
was simply a very daunting task, and one he wasn't getting much help
with.

Additionally, there's the fact that Doctrine is becoming a key part of
the greater PHP ecosystem. Agavi and Symfony ship with it. I've seen
tutorials for using it with CodeIgniter, Cake (and the new offshoot,
Lithium), and of course ZF. Considering that many developers will be
using it in other projects, it makes for a natural migration point --
migrate your models from one framework to another in order to make use
of a different MVC or components. It simply makes sense *not* to
reinvent the wheel here, and instead spend some time doing formal
integration with Doctrine in order to leverage its community of
developers.

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

A.J. Brown-3
I use Zend Framework and Doctrine bundled together quiet frequently.
If I can be of any assistance in this new direction, I'm most
certainly interested in helping.

In the short term, I have some code to boot Doctrine is a
Zend_Application_Resource with configuration, if anyone is interested.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> -- Georgy Turevich <[hidden email]> wrote
> (on Friday, 30 October 2009, 11:31 AM +0300):
>> I have not understood. The component will be developed by other people? Or it
>> is discontinue for ever?
>
> Discontinued.
>
> All development was being done basically by Benjamin himself, and my
> team is simply too small for me to provide him much additional support
> without having it affect other projects. We have considered in the past
> writing an ORM, and the conclusion has always been that we do not have
> either enough expertise or resources on our team to undertake it. I was
> willing to let it be a community effort, but it would have taken a
> dedicated team of volunteers (a) to make it happen in a reasonable time
> frame, and (b) to provide ongoing support for it.
>
> Benjamin got to a point where he realized he'd finished about 50% of
> functionality, and likely had another 4-6 months before it was
> releasable. At that point, we'd be gearing up for ZF 2.0, which would
> mean he'd need to start rewriting to make use of PHP 5.3 features. It
> was simply a very daunting task, and one he wasn't getting much help
> with.
>
> Additionally, there's the fact that Doctrine is becoming a key part of
> the greater PHP ecosystem. Agavi and Symfony ship with it. I've seen
> tutorials for using it with CodeIgniter, Cake (and the new offshoot,
> Lithium), and of course ZF. Considering that many developers will be
> using it in other projects, it makes for a natural migration point --
> migrate your models from one framework to another in order to make use
> of a different MVC or components. It simply makes sense *not* to
> reinvent the wheel here, and instead spend some time doing formal
> integration with Doctrine in order to leverage its community of
> developers.
>
> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
>



--
A.J. Brown
web | http://ajbrown.org
phone | (937) 660-3969
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

Juozas
In reply to this post by weierophinney
Hello,

Sorry about that, but I was a little bit skeptical about Zend_Entity in the first place. Mainly, as known now, because there was only one person actually doing it and therefore it seemed literally impossible to complete it in a reasonable amount of time and maintain a good code quality in the future. That's why I chose Doctrine a while back. 

I had a few talks about the fact that zf tries to have too much components in it (that's another topic) and always believed that it can replace some of them by 3rdparty ones. The fact, that Doctrine is chosen is wonderful for me - two brilliant libraries with good developers teams on both sides also.

I have been using it with zf for quite a long time and tried a lot of different components with it (Models, Forms, Services, Paginator, Auth+Acl, etc.) so I'm up to contribute to this proposal when it becomes available.

--
Juozas Kaziukėnas ([hidden email])
Aš internete - JuoKaz (http://www.juokaz.com)


On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Georgy Turevich <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Friday, 30 October 2009, 11:31 AM +0300):
> I have not understood. The component will be developed by other people? Or it
> is discontinue for ever?

Discontinued.

All development was being done basically by Benjamin himself, and my
team is simply too small for me to provide him much additional support
without having it affect other projects. We have considered in the past
writing an ORM, and the conclusion has always been that we do not have
either enough expertise or resources on our team to undertake it. I was
willing to let it be a community effort, but it would have taken a
dedicated team of volunteers (a) to make it happen in a reasonable time
frame, and (b) to provide ongoing support for it.

Benjamin got to a point where he realized he'd finished about 50% of
functionality, and likely had another 4-6 months before it was
releasable. At that point, we'd be gearing up for ZF 2.0, which would
mean he'd need to start rewriting to make use of PHP 5.3 features. It
was simply a very daunting task, and one he wasn't getting much help
with.

Additionally, there's the fact that Doctrine is becoming a key part of
the greater PHP ecosystem. Agavi and Symfony ship with it. I've seen
tutorials for using it with CodeIgniter, Cake (and the new offshoot,
Lithium), and of course ZF. Considering that many developers will be
using it in other projects, it makes for a natural migration point --
migrate your models from one framework to another in order to make use
of a different MVC or components. It simply makes sense *not* to
reinvent the wheel here, and instead spend some time doing formal
integration with Doctrine in order to leverage its community of
developers.

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

latterd
In reply to this post by A.J. Brown-3
I'd be very interested to have a look at your resource as I am just  
prototyping now for quite a large system now so would be great to have  
a look at what you have done. Thanks


On 30 Oct 2009, at 12:03, "A.J. Brown" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I use Zend Framework and Doctrine bundled together quiet frequently.
> If I can be of any assistance in this new direction, I'm most
> certainly interested in helping.
>
> In the short term, I have some code to boot Doctrine is a
> Zend_Application_Resource with configuration, if anyone is interested.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> -- Georgy Turevich <[hidden email]> wrote
>> (on Friday, 30 October 2009, 11:31 AM +0300):
>>> I have not understood. The component will be developed by other  
>>> people? Or it
>>> is discontinue for ever?
>>
>> Discontinued.
>>
>> All development was being done basically by Benjamin himself, and my
>> team is simply too small for me to provide him much additional  
>> support
>> without having it affect other projects. We have considered in the  
>> past
>> writing an ORM, and the conclusion has always been that we do not  
>> have
>> either enough expertise or resources on our team to undertake it. I  
>> was
>> willing to let it be a community effort, but it would have taken a
>> dedicated team of volunteers (a) to make it happen in a reasonable  
>> time
>> frame, and (b) to provide ongoing support for it.
>>
>> Benjamin got to a point where he realized he'd finished about 50% of
>> functionality, and likely had another 4-6 months before it was
>> releasable. At that point, we'd be gearing up for ZF 2.0, which would
>> mean he'd need to start rewriting to make use of PHP 5.3 features. It
>> was simply a very daunting task, and one he wasn't getting much help
>> with.
>>
>> Additionally, there's the fact that Doctrine is becoming a key part  
>> of
>> the greater PHP ecosystem. Agavi and Symfony ship with it. I've seen
>> tutorials for using it with CodeIgniter, Cake (and the new offshoot,
>> Lithium), and of course ZF. Considering that many developers will be
>> using it in other projects, it makes for a natural migration point --
>> migrate your models from one framework to another in order to make  
>> use
>> of a different MVC or components. It simply makes sense *not* to
>> reinvent the wheel here, and instead spend some time doing formal
>> integration with Doctrine in order to leverage its community of
>> developers.
>>
>> --
>> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
>> Project Lead            | [hidden email]
>> Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> A.J. Brown
> web | http://ajbrown.org
> phone | (937) 660-3969
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

Ralph Schindler-2
In reply to this post by keith Pope-4

>
> Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.....
>
> Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide
> now to not use the Data Mapper pattern and use doctrine instead?
>

I would strongly disagree with that move.  I think ZF has always offered
2 solid solutions to modeling: use our Data classes (Table Row, etc) to
build out a proper model, OR use a 3rd Party ORM framework- like Doctrine.

At ZendCon, i've heard more than one person say "This is the way
modeling should be done" after seeing matthew's talk on

http://www.slideshare.net/weierophinney/architecting-your-models

If a project doesn't have the resources to model their data like that,
or they need to leverage the Doctrine ecosystem to get a project done in
time.  But in the most ideal world (where resources are not an issue), I
  too think that this presentation shows how things should be done.

That said, I think the quickstart should show both options, but focus on
the Data Mapper, Service Layer stuff.

-ralph
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

keith Pope-4
2009/10/30 Ralph Schindler <[hidden email]>:

>
>>
>> Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.....
>>
>> Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide
>> now to not use the Data Mapper pattern and use doctrine instead?
>>
>
> I would strongly disagree with that move.  I think ZF has always offered 2
> solid solutions to modeling: use our Data classes (Table Row, etc) to build
> out a proper model, OR use a 3rd Party ORM framework- like Doctrine.
>
> At ZendCon, i've heard more than one person say "This is the way modeling
> should be done" after seeing matthew's talk on
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/weierophinney/architecting-your-models
>
> If a project doesn't have the resources to model their data like that, or
> they need to leverage the Doctrine ecosystem to get a project done in time.
>  But in the most ideal world (where resources are not an issue), I  too
> think that this presentation shows how things should be done.
>
> That said, I think the quickstart should show both options, but focus on the
> Data Mapper, Service Layer stuff.

I agree that the data mapper is a good way to do Models etc but I
think the basic mapper shown in the quickstart does lead people into
trouble. If a newcomer follows the quickstart they soon find out that
modeling relations is very hard and they need an ORM...If we had
Doctrine 2 integration we can then show the data mapper pattern at its
best IMO.

I have had this concern with the quickstart for a while :)

Also will we be deprecating Zend_Db as if we have tight Doctrine
integration is there any reason to keep Zend_Db?

>
> -ralph
>



--
------------
http://www.thepopeisdead.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration

drm-4
Hi Keith,

> I agree that the data mapper is a good way to do Models etc but I
> think the basic mapper shown in the quickstart does lead people into
> trouble. If a newcomer follows the quickstart they soon find out that
> modeling relations is very hard and they need an ORM...If we had
> Doctrine 2 integration we can then show the data mapper pattern at its
> best IMO.
>
> I have had this concern with the quickstart for a while :)
>  
You might be on a slippery slope here. I don't think Zend Framework
should dictate how people design their applications. Sure you can
encourage the use of good patterns, etc, but the choice is ultimately
the user's, and if the user is not capable of making those decisions
based on what they know, they might not be the right person for the
right job, to be frank...

I think one of ZF's unique selling points is that you can use a fraction
of the framework or stack all kinds of parts on each other, but (almost)
never being forced to use large code bases that you don't really need.
Good design doesn't dictate implementation, imo.

> Also will we be deprecating Zend_Db as if we have tight Doctrine
> integration is there any reason to keep Zend_Db?
Please keep Zend_Db! I've never used it, but making Zend Framework so
much dependent on another framework is never a good thing.
123