Module PhingBundle review

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Module PhingBundle review

Tomáš Fejfar
I guess ZF/ZFC namespace should be reserved for ZF core developers. As the "zf" prefix is kind of  a quality mark. And it will create much misunderstanding to whether it's part of ZF, if it's ZF-class quality, or ZF maintained, ZF reviewed, etc.... 

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Matus Zeman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've been following this discussion... but now I have to say my thoughts as I believe it has gone a bit wild.

I don't think there should be some restriction on module name apart of:
  • it should be prefixed by author/company name - to eliminate as much as possible name collisions.
  • second part can but does not have to indicate what the module is about... but obviously developers will choose meaningful names - why should they not anyway?
I don't see the reason renaming modules once they are "somewhere"....
Module aggregating websites should have own categorization which will filter out modules a user is looking for - e.g. looking in "authentication/user management" category returns "ZfcUser" and "KapitchiIdentity" modules...  

Cheers and happy Friday!
Matus

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Marc Bennewitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -- Artur Bodera <[hidden email]> wrote
> (on Friday, 30 March 2012, 06:57 AM +0200):
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Kyle Spraggs <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >     Please DO NOT use ZfPhing. This implies it is part of the Zf
> (official)
> >     namespace. Unless, or course, it is official and I missed it while
> skimming
> >     this thread.
> >
> > I don't see such assumption. Zf means "for zend framework" while "Phing"
> points
> > at the tech we're integrating with.
> >
> > If you go through the list at http://modules.zendframework.com/ you'll see
> the
> > following patterns:
> >
> >   * just a name  (Bacon)
> >   * author's prefix + name (mwGearman)
> >   * name + "module"  (DoctrineModule)
> >   * "zf" + hyphen + name + hyphen + module (zf-facebook-module)
> >   * "zf" + name (ZfTwig).
> >
> > We do not have any naming revision authority (yet?) and we proposed
> > against erecting one, so actually the name can be anything. The only
> > "recommendation" I remember (on this ML) was:
> >   * author's prefix + name (remember Evan? :-)
> >
> > ps: not saying a "stronger recommendation" (with Paddy's Ninja Assasin's
> handy)
> > wouldn't be a good idea ...
>
> I think the point Kyle is making, however, is that "Zf" implies that
> Zend Framework ships it, or that it has "official sanction."
> Additionally, choosing such a prefix is likely to lead to naming
> collisions (who chose "ZfTwig" first -- developer A or developer B? and
> which is the one I was just recommended?), as well as to confusion as to
> where to obtain the code ("ZF... that means Zend Framework, right? why
> can't I find the code in their packages?").
>
> I'm definitely of the mind that we should name with unique vendor
> prefixes -- be it a company name, personal name/initials, or otherwise,
> but something that can be easily traced back to the originator.
I think it's up to the author naming his module until it will be published on a official (modules.zendframework.com) site but than it should a name saying what it is doing only.
That it is a ZF module, which user published it or what ever should be addressed by the official site were it was published.

Btw. modules should be verified / signed before publishing to make sure it follows licenses and doesn't mean ill.

>
> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
> PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Module PhingBundle review

SpiffyJr
ZF should be reserved for *official* ZF modules only, for example, the ZfDeveloperTools. Zfc is for zf-commons which is a community driven subset of modules that will be a) commonly used and b) of high quality. http://www.github.com/zf-commons.

Kyle S
"There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries." - WIlliam Shakespeare



2012/3/30 Tomáš Fejfar <[hidden email]>
I guess ZF/ZFC namespace should be reserved for ZF core developers. As the "zf" prefix is kind of  a quality mark. And it will create much misunderstanding to whether it's part of ZF, if it's ZF-class quality, or ZF maintained, ZF reviewed, etc.... 


On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Matus Zeman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've been following this discussion... but now I have to say my thoughts as I believe it has gone a bit wild.

I don't think there should be some restriction on module name apart of:
  • it should be prefixed by author/company name - to eliminate as much as possible name collisions.
  • second part can but does not have to indicate what the module is about... but obviously developers will choose meaningful names - why should they not anyway?
I don't see the reason renaming modules once they are "somewhere"....
Module aggregating websites should have own categorization which will filter out modules a user is looking for - e.g. looking in "authentication/user management" category returns "ZfcUser" and "KapitchiIdentity" modules...  

Cheers and happy Friday!
Matus

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Marc Bennewitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -- Artur Bodera <[hidden email]> wrote
> (on Friday, 30 March 2012, 06:57 AM +0200):
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Kyle Spraggs <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >     Please DO NOT use ZfPhing. This implies it is part of the Zf
> (official)
> >     namespace. Unless, or course, it is official and I missed it while
> skimming
> >     this thread.
> >
> > I don't see such assumption. Zf means "for zend framework" while "Phing"
> points
> > at the tech we're integrating with.
> >
> > If you go through the list at http://modules.zendframework.com/ you'll see
> the
> > following patterns:
> >
> >   * just a name  (Bacon)
> >   * author's prefix + name (mwGearman)
> >   * name + "module"  (DoctrineModule)
> >   * "zf" + hyphen + name + hyphen + module (zf-facebook-module)
> >   * "zf" + name (ZfTwig).
> >
> > We do not have any naming revision authority (yet?) and we proposed
> > against erecting one, so actually the name can be anything. The only
> > "recommendation" I remember (on this ML) was:
> >   * author's prefix + name (remember Evan? :-)
> >
> > ps: not saying a "stronger recommendation" (with Paddy's Ninja Assasin's
> handy)
> > wouldn't be a good idea ...
>
> I think the point Kyle is making, however, is that "Zf" implies that
> Zend Framework ships it, or that it has "official sanction."
> Additionally, choosing such a prefix is likely to lead to naming
> collisions (who chose "ZfTwig" first -- developer A or developer B? and
> which is the one I was just recommended?), as well as to confusion as to
> where to obtain the code ("ZF... that means Zend Framework, right? why
> can't I find the code in their packages?").
>
> I'm definitely of the mind that we should name with unique vendor
> prefixes -- be it a company name, personal name/initials, or otherwise,
> but something that can be easily traced back to the originator.
I think it's up to the author naming his module until it will be published on a official (modules.zendframework.com) site but than it should a name saying what it is doing only.
That it is a ZF module, which user published it or what ever should be addressed by the official site were it was published.

Btw. modules should be verified / signed before publishing to make sure it follows licenses and doesn't mean ill.

>
> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
> PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc
>



Kyle S
blogs @ www.spiffyjr.me
github @ www.github.com/spiffyjr
follow @ www.twitter.com/spiffyjr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Module PhingBundle review

Artur Bodera
2012/3/30 Kyle S <[hidden email]>
ZF should be reserved for *official* ZF modules only, for example, the ZfDeveloperTools. Zfc is for zf-commons which is a community driven subset of modules that will be a) commonly used and b) of high quality. http://www.github.com/zf-commons.

2012/3/30 Tomáš Fejfar <[hidden email]>
I guess ZF/ZFC namespace should be reserved for ZF core developers. As the "zf" prefix is kind of  a quality mark. And it will create much misunderstanding to whether it's part of ZF, if it's ZF-class quality, or ZF maintained, ZF reviewed, etc.... 



The problem with all you're proposing is that we _do not have_ any pipeline set up, nor guidelines, nor even an intent to create one - that would enforce that. There is "ZendFramework" github organisation and that's where all "official" ZF stuff will live. 

Namespaces are not an issue here, as even ZF2 Services will live outside of Zend\ namespace (but inside this organization). 

There is no way of enforcing what you're proposing, nor do I see any purpose of doing so. Official channels are well known and people can fetch core framework and services from zendframework github org. Other than that, I don't see why any Zf-related module couldn't be named "ZfDoSomething" ?

Similar thing goes with Symfony bundles. They only thing that's "asked for" is not to abuse the S2 php namespace. Other than that, the convention is DoSomethingBundle, with freedom of choosing any name or prefix imaginable.

In case another "official" module would pop up in ZendFramework github org, it would be just called DoSomething - because the organization name is already a prefix. For example: "github/ZendFramework/ModuleInstaller"


Here's how our friends at S2 handle that: https://github.com/symfony




-- 
      __
     /.)\   +48 695 600 936
     \(./   [hidden email]




 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Module PhingBundle review

weierophinney
Administrator
-- Artur Bodera <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Friday, 30 March 2012, 06:51 PM +0200):
<snip>
> There is no way of enforcing what you're proposing, nor do I see any purpose of
> doing so. Official channels are well known and people can fetch core framework
> and services from zendframework github org. Other than that, I don't see why
> any Zf-related module couldn't be named "ZfDoSomething" ?

Please see my notes earlir in the thread. Yes, we can only make a
suggestion. My _suggestion_ is that people do not prefix with "Zf", if
for no other reason than to make it simpler for people to find their
module in the first place. Using "Zf" as the prefix will likely lead to
developers looking for the module under the zendframework organization
first, and then getting surprised when they do not find it.

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

Re: Module PhingBundle review

Derek Miranda

On Mar 30, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

> -- Artur Bodera <[hidden email]> wrote
> (on Friday, 30 March 2012, 06:51 PM +0200):
> <snip>
>> There is no way of enforcing what you're proposing, nor do I see any purpose of
>> doing so. Official channels are well known and people can fetch core framework
>> and services from zendframework github org. Other than that, I don't see why
>> any Zf-related module couldn't be named "ZfDoSomething" ?
>
> Please see my notes earlir in the thread. Yes, we can only make a
> suggestion. My _suggestion_ is that people do not prefix with "Zf", if
> for no other reason than to make it simpler for people to find their
> module in the first place. Using "Zf" as the prefix will likely lead to
> developers looking for the module under the zendframework organization
> first, and then getting surprised when they do not find it.
>
It would also make lists unfriendly. Most modules would end up starting with zf, making an alphabetical list a nightmare.

> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
> PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Module PhingBundle review

Matus Zeman

I believe alphabetical list will never be important. It's module index site (as modules.zend.com will be) which should handle this. eg user ratings, categorization, tags. But at the same time I think zf* namespace/module prefix should be kept for "officially" supported modules by zend community. If it's gonna be generally accepted or not we will see by time.

Matus

On Mar 30, 2012 9:20 PM, "Derek Miranda" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mar 30, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

> -- Artur Bodera <[hidden email]> wrote
> (on Friday, 30 March 2012, 06:51 PM +0200):
> <snip>
>> There is no way of enforcing what you're proposing, nor do I see any purpose of
>> doing so. Official channels are well known and people can fetch core framework
>> and services from zendframework github org. Other than that, I don't see why
>> any Zf-related module couldn't be named "ZfDoSomething" ?
>
> Please see my notes earlir in the thread. Yes, we can only make a
> suggestion. My _suggestion_ is that people do not prefix with "Zf", if
> for no other reason than to make it simpler for people to find their
> module in the first place. Using "Zf" as the prefix will likely lead to
> developers looking for the module under the zendframework organization
> first, and then getting surprised when they do not find it.
>
It would also make lists unfriendly. Most modules would end up starting with zf, making an alphabetical list a nightmare.

> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
> PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc

12