|
|
12
|
Administrator
|
Hey, all --
Somebody linked me to an interesting question:
http://forums.zend.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=103858#p191568Basically, the author asks if we could ship a version of the skeleton
application that's, well, a skeleton -- specifically, a version that
doesn't include:
* translations
* twitter bootstrap
I think they have a very valid point -- if you're not planning to use
twitter bootstrap in your application, it shouldn't be there to start
(as that means an extra step to remove it). Similarly, the translations
are for the text given in the application home page and layout -- stuff
you're not going to include in your final application.
Perhaps we should have a branch that's truly minimal, and which is used
for starting a new project -- vs. having an appealing landing page?
Thoughts?
--
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
|
|
|
On 14 Nov 2012, at 18:47, Matthew Weier O'Phinney < [hidden email]> wrote:
> Hey, all --
>
> Somebody linked me to an interesting question:
>
> http://forums.zend.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=103858#p191568>
> Basically, the author asks if we could ship a version of the skeleton
> application that's, well, a skeleton -- specifically, a version that
> doesn't include:
>
> * translations
> * twitter bootstrap
>
I'm certainly in favour. With nearly every ZF2 project I've started, I've stripped out translations, index.phtml, favion.ico and re-worked parts of the layout.
Regards,
Rob....
|
|
|
Ditto. Incredibly annoying having to constantly strip those out with every single clone.
Kyle S
blogs @ www.spiffyjr.me
github @ www.github.com/spiffyjr
follow @ www.twitter.com/spiffyjr
|
|
|
Hi all,
I like the approach of ZF1, where the only "non-clean" file is the index.phtml, which links to external resources for stylesheets and scripts.
My ideal ZF2 skeleton would be as it is now, but with no translations (those are completely irrelevant to my final app), and the index page as we have now, but linked to external resources, and with an empty layout file.
With this I can create a new project, make sure that my virtual server/PHPCloud/etc. is setup correctly by seeing the index page, then just deleting or clearing the index.phtml to have a base for my project.
Regards,
Michael Gooden
|
|
|
I've been working on a minimal version with just a responsive layout as a base for future projects, but not using Bootstrap or any javascript to do so. I think this would be a good step in the right direction.
|
|
|
It seems I'm the only one who prefers the appealing landing page,
compared to what we had in ZF 1.
If people compare frameworks, they should not think: oh, ZF looks
just bare compared to the others. I know this is not a valid
argument, but I think it is a psychological effect on the less
experienced evaluators.
-Bart
Op 14-11-12 19:47, Matthew Weier
O'Phinney schreef:
Hey, all --
Somebody linked me to an interesting question:
http://forums.zend.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=103858#p191568
Basically, the author asks if we could ship a version of the skeleton
application that's, well, a skeleton -- specifically, a version that
doesn't include:
* translations
* twitter bootstrap
I think they have a very valid point -- if you're not planning to use
twitter bootstrap in your application, it shouldn't be there to start
(as that means an extra step to remove it). Similarly, the translations
are for the text given in the application home page and layout -- stuff
you're not going to include in your final application.
Perhaps we should have a branch that's truly minimal, and which is used
for starting a new project -- vs. having an appealing landing page?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Hello Bart,
> It seems I'm the only one who prefers the appealing landing page, compared to what we had in ZF 1.
I agree that it is appealing, but this is only thanks to Twitter Bootstrap. What I think it lacks is leveraging all the features of Twitter Bootstrap with the ZF2 components, e.g. rendering a drop-down navigation within the top navigation bar from a navigation container.
I might have missed something, but this is not as easily achieved at the moment - and slightly off topic - but at the moment it's a bit stuck in the middle: it's neither a bare skeleton nor show-casing the features of ZF2.
> If people compare frameworks, they should not think: oh, ZF looks just bare compared to the others. I know this is not a valid argument, but I think it is a psychological effect on the less experienced evaluators.
I strongly agree - it would probably help a lot if some variant looked as awesome as it could.
Best regards,
Andreas
|
|
|
+1 Best regards Antoine hedgecock PMG Media Group AB ----- Reply message ----- From: "Andreas Möller" < [hidden email]> To: "Bart McLeod" < [hidden email]> Cc: " [hidden email]" < [hidden email]> Subject: [zf-contributors] Skeleton app -- making it more minimal Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2012 21:59 Hello Bart, > It seems I'm the only one who prefers the appealing landing page, compared to what we had in ZF 1. I agree that it is appealing, but this is only thanks to Twitter Bootstrap. What I think it lacks is leveraging all the features of Twitter Bootstrap with the ZF2 components, e.g. rendering a drop-down navigation within the top navigation bar from a navigation container. I might have missed something, but this is not as easily achieved at the moment - and slightly off topic - but at the moment it's a bit stuck in the middle: it's neither a bare skeleton nor show-casing the features of ZF2. > If people compare frameworks, they should not think: oh, ZF looks just bare compared to the others. I know this is not a valid argument, but I think it is a psychological effect on the less experienced evaluators. I strongly agree - it would probably help a lot if some variant looked as awesome as it could. Best regards, Andreas
|
|
Administrator
|
-- Andreas Möller < [hidden email]> wrote
(on Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 09:59 PM +0100):
> > It seems I'm the only one who prefers the appealing landing page,
> > compared to what we had in ZF 1.
>
> I agree that it is appealing, but this is only thanks to Twitter
> Bootstrap. What I think it lacks is leveraging all the features of
> Twitter Bootstrap with the ZF2 components, e.g. rendering a drop-down
> navigation within the top navigation bar from a navigation container.
>
> I might have missed something, but this is not as easily achieved at
> the moment - and slightly off topic - but at the moment it's a bit
> stuck in the middle: it's neither a bare skeleton nor show-casing the
> features of ZF2.
>
> > If people compare frameworks, they should not think: oh, ZF looks
> > just bare compared to the others. I know this is not a valid
> > argument, but I think it is a psychological effect on the less
> > experienced evaluators.
>
> I strongly agree - it would probably help a lot if some variant looked
> as awesome as it could.
I personally love the look of the skeleton application. While it doesn't
show off all the ZF2 features, it's really nice to be able to install,
and immediately prove that "it works", and does so in a beautiful way.
The problem, however, is that once you actually start _working_ in the
project, you more than likely need to strip this stuff out. That
means extra steps you have to take when you begin development. And
that's exactly the sort of thing the skeleton app is supposed to
_prevent_.
My suggestion is:
* Keep the current stuff, but
* Have a branch that is minimal, and which users may select when
cloning, installing via composer, etc.
I think this would be the best of both worlds -- something flashy for
prototyping or trying out features, and something minimal for those who
just want to get started working.
--
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
|
|
|
Op 14-11-12 22:44, Matthew Weier O'Phinney schreef:
> -- Andreas Möller < [hidden email]> wrote
> (on Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 09:59 PM +0100):
>>> It seems I'm the only one who prefers the appealing landing page,
>>> compared to what we had in ZF 1.
>> I agree that it is appealing, but this is only thanks to Twitter
>> Bootstrap. What I think it lacks is leveraging all the features of
>> Twitter Bootstrap with the ZF2 components, e.g. rendering a drop-down
>> navigation within the top navigation bar from a navigation container.
>>
>> I might have missed something, but this is not as easily achieved at
>> the moment - and slightly off topic - but at the moment it's a bit
>> stuck in the middle: it's neither a bare skeleton nor show-casing the
>> features of ZF2.
>>
>>> If people compare frameworks, they should not think: oh, ZF looks
>>> just bare compared to the others. I know this is not a valid
>>> argument, but I think it is a psychological effect on the less
>>> experienced evaluators.
>> I strongly agree - it would probably help a lot if some variant looked
>> as awesome as it could.
> I personally love the look of the skeleton application. While it doesn't
> show off all the ZF2 features, it's really nice to be able to install,
> and immediately prove that "it works", and does so in a beautiful way.
>
> The problem, however, is that once you actually start _working_ in the
> project, you more than likely need to strip this stuff out. That
> means extra steps you have to take when you begin development. And
> that's exactly the sort of thing the skeleton app is supposed to
> _prevent_.
>
> My suggestion is:
>
> * Keep the current stuff, but
> * Have a branch that is minimal, and which users may select when
> cloning, installing via composer, etc.
>
> I think this would be the best of both worlds -- something flashy for
> prototyping or trying out features, and something minimal for those who
> just want to get started working.
>
I understand the line of thought and it is obviously a good idea to have
a minimal branch availabe to anyone who really just needs the barebones.
What I did so far in the little :( time I could spend with ZF 2 is just
leave everything in place and develop new modules without touching or
changing anything in the core Skeleton application.
- Bart
--
|
|
|
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
Maybe having a branch that is minimal will give us the ability of putting more code in the "bigger" branch, like for example putting some navigation code or any other widely used code, I think this will also be an advantage when someone want to start a "more preconfigured" application.
|
|
|
Couldn't most of the parts of the skeleton be refactored out into modules? It would make sense if the cloned skeleton would be only bare-bones (that's why it's a skeleton) and have stuff set in composer.json to be downloaded?
You probably don't use translations, but many non-english developers need at least native + english so having translations out of the box is great!
Matthew, wouldn't one more branch mean much more work? We should also optimize human resources (you and the team) - not only the app :D
|
|
|
I strongly desire for a lean skeleton or even a bare framework from the very beginning of ZF2. On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hey, all --
Somebody linked me to an interesting question:
http://forums.zend.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=103858#p191568
Basically, the author asks if we could ship a version of the skeleton
application that's, well, a skeleton -- specifically, a version that
doesn't include:
* translations
* twitter bootstrap
I think they have a very valid point -- if you're not planning to use
twitter bootstrap in your application, it shouldn't be there to start
(as that means an extra step to remove it). Similarly, the translations
are for the text given in the application home page and layout -- stuff
you're not going to include in your final application.
Perhaps we should have a branch that's truly minimal, and which is used
for starting a new project -- vs. having an appealing landing page?
Thoughts?
--
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
--
Taiwen Jiang (aka D.J.)
Build Xoops Engine
web and mobile application platform
CTO for EEFOCUS.com Leading social platform for electronics professionals
|
|
|
I agree with this one. I use Zend Studio and to strip everything from the
skeleton is not a good thing. The additional problem is to update
bootstrap, there will be newer versions and you have to change the
files anyway or update Zend Studio more often.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Matthew Weier O'Phinney [mailto: [hidden email]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. November 2012 22:44
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [zf-contributors] Skeleton app -- making it more minimal
-- Andreas Möller < [hidden email]> wrote
(on Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 09:59 PM +0100):
> > It seems I'm the only one who prefers the appealing landing page,
> > compared to what we had in ZF 1.
>
> I agree that it is appealing, but this is only thanks to Twitter
> Bootstrap. What I think it lacks is leveraging all the features of
> Twitter Bootstrap with the ZF2 components, e.g. rendering a drop-down
> navigation within the top navigation bar from a navigation container.
>
> I might have missed something, but this is not as easily achieved at
> the moment - and slightly off topic - but at the moment it's a bit
> stuck in the middle: it's neither a bare skeleton nor show-casing the
> features of ZF2.
>
> > If people compare frameworks, they should not think: oh, ZF looks
> > just bare compared to the others. I know this is not a valid
> > argument, but I think it is a psychological effect on the less
> > experienced evaluators.
>
> I strongly agree - it would probably help a lot if some variant looked
> as awesome as it could.
I personally love the look of the skeleton application. While it doesn't
show off all the ZF2 features, it's really nice to be able to install,
and immediately prove that "it works", and does so in a beautiful way.
The problem, however, is that once you actually start _working_ in the
project, you more than likely need to strip this stuff out. That
means extra steps you have to take when you begin development. And
that's exactly the sort of thing the skeleton app is supposed to
_prevent_.
My suggestion is:
* Keep the current stuff, but
* Have a branch that is minimal, and which users may select when
cloning, installing via composer, etc.
I think this would be the best of both worlds -- something flashy for
prototyping or trying out features, and something minimal for those who
just want to get started working.
--
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
|
|
|
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
It's completely dependant on the purpose of the application. If it's purpose is to be a starting point for new projects it should be as bare as possible. If it's purpose is to showcase the framework then it should be as complete as it can be.
I personally feel that the twitter bootstrap stuff and pretty landing page are fine; you'd have to remove any html in the layout and view to start working on your application anyway. However the translations are a step too far. in my opinion a significant number of people are stripping that out straight away, therefore it shouldn't be in if the skeleton app's purpose is a starting point.
I think another problem is that "skeleton" is a misnomer based on current functionality. Total ramblings, sorry. Gary
On Nov 14, 2012 8:42 PM, "Bart McLeod [via Zend Framework Community]" < [hidden email]> wrote:
It seems I'm the only one who prefers the appealing landing page,
compared to what we had in ZF 1.
If people compare frameworks, they should not think: oh, ZF looks
just bare compared to the others. I know this is not a valid
argument, but I think it is a psychological effect on the less
experienced evaluators.
-Bart
Op 14-11-12 19:47, Matthew Weier
O'Phinney schreef:
Hey, all --
Somebody linked me to an interesting question:
http://forums.zend.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=103858#p191568
Basically, the author asks if we could ship a version of the skeleton
application that's, well, a skeleton -- specifically, a version that
doesn't include:
* translations
* twitter bootstrap
I think they have a very valid point -- if you're not planning to use
twitter bootstrap in your application, it shouldn't be there to start
(as that means an extra step to remove it). Similarly, the translations
are for the text given in the application home page and layout -- stuff
you're not going to include in your final application.
Perhaps we should have a branch that's truly minimal, and which is used
for starting a new project -- vs. having an appealing landing page?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
For my pennies worth....
I like the out of the box feel of the skeleton and think we should definitely keep it as is. This makes it something pretty to look at for people new to the framework and want to see something happening quickly.
If people are like me then they will have taken the default skeleton and modified it to suite there needs and personal preferences and then saved it somewhere to reuse. I say let people manage their own variants of the skeleton and merge in updates from upstream as and when it becomes necessary.
if people are adamant about stripping bits out then I would suggest a script that can be run that will strip out the "extras" from the skeleton rather than another branch to have to manage.
totally agree with Tomas about managing peoples time just as much as branches and the less variants you guys have to manage the more you can work on things that matter more.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Marc Tempelmeier <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with this one. I use Zend Studio and to strip everything from the
skeleton is not a good thing. The additional problem is to update
bootstrap, there will be newer versions and you have to change the
files anyway or update Zend Studio more often.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Matthew Weier O'Phinney [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. November 2012 22:44
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [zf-contributors] Skeleton app -- making it more minimal
-- Andreas Möller < [hidden email]> wrote
(on Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 09:59 PM +0100):
> > It seems I'm the only one who prefers the appealing landing page,
> > compared to what we had in ZF 1.
>
> I agree that it is appealing, but this is only thanks to Twitter
> Bootstrap. What I think it lacks is leveraging all the features of
> Twitter Bootstrap with the ZF2 components, e.g. rendering a drop-down
> navigation within the top navigation bar from a navigation container.
>
> I might have missed something, but this is not as easily achieved at
> the moment - and slightly off topic - but at the moment it's a bit
> stuck in the middle: it's neither a bare skeleton nor show-casing the
> features of ZF2.
>
> > If people compare frameworks, they should not think: oh, ZF looks
> > just bare compared to the others. I know this is not a valid
> > argument, but I think it is a psychological effect on the less
> > experienced evaluators.
>
> I strongly agree - it would probably help a lot if some variant looked
> as awesome as it could.
I personally love the look of the skeleton application. While it doesn't
show off all the ZF2 features, it's really nice to be able to install,
and immediately prove that "it works", and does so in a beautiful way.
The problem, however, is that once you actually start _working_ in the
project, you more than likely need to strip this stuff out. That
means extra steps you have to take when you begin development. And
that's exactly the sort of thing the skeleton app is supposed to
_prevent_.
My suggestion is:
* Keep the current stuff, but
* Have a branch that is minimal, and which users may select when
cloning, installing via composer, etc.
I think this would be the best of both worlds -- something flashy for
prototyping or trying out features, and something minimal for those who
just want to get started working.
-- Matt Cockayne
Zucchi ! Digital Perfection Managing Director
t: +44 (0) 843 557 1751 m: +44 (0) 773 836 4766
a: 26 Avon Rd / Cheadle / Cheshire / SK8 3LS
|
|
|
Hello Matthew,
> I personally love the look of the skeleton application. While it doesn't
> show off all the ZF2 features, it's really nice to be able to install,
> and immediately prove that "it works", and does so in a beautiful way.
It also quickly shows that you can't render a drop-down navigation easily, because - as far as I can tell - the htmlify() method of the navigation view helper doesn't allow custom attributes, as it ignores all but a few.
Can this be amended, easily? Or shall one have to register a custom navigation helper for this?
Best regards,
Andreas
|
|
|
Hello Artur,
> It's easier to strip out stuff you don't need....
>
> ... as opposed to getting a barebone, empty white page app and then searching for ways to add basic stuff.
Unless the documentation is there, and that is - at least from my point of view - the reason for the ZendSkeletonApplication in the first place. There shouldn't be a need for a ZendSkeletonApplication as one should be able to create a ZF2 app from scratch quickly - given the documentation is there.
Best regards,
Andreas
|
12
|
Locked
