Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

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

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Marco Pivetta
@Andreas I'd use the skeleton application anyway. Writing the sorrounding boilerplate code is useless.

I'd just move the Application module to an own repository and add optional "suggests" to the composer.json (for example for bootstrap... that's the first thing I usually delete). That does the trick IMO.

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius     

http://ocramius.github.com/



On 15 November 2012 14:03, Andreas Möller <[hidden email]> wrote:
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

weierophinney
Administrator
In reply to this post by Tomáš Fejfar
-- Tomáš Fejfar <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Thursday, 15 November 2012, 12:56 AM +0100):
> 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!

Right -- but this should ideally be opt-in functionality -- and the
translations available are for text you'll be removing anyways. Probably
the only helpful part about it is having a concrete example of how to
set it up.

> 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

Neither I nor my team maintain the skeleton app, actually -- that's all
done by the CR team. :)


> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Bart McLeod <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>     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
>
>     --
>
>
>

--
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: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Tomáš Fejfar
Easy opt-in for advanced features for bare-bones skeleton seems like the most useful setup right now. Question is if it's doable :)

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Tomáš Fejfar <[hidden email]> wrote
> 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
Neither I nor my team maintain the skeleton app, actually -- that's all
done by the CR team. :)
Is that really relevant? :D

The point is - will there be will to keep the branches in sync, so that the skeleton would be the subset of sample app? 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Xerkus
In reply to this post by Tomáš Fejfar
On 15.11.2012 10:56, Tomáš Fejfar wrote:
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

Tomas Fejfar, w3w.cz

twitter: @tomasfejfar

email: [hidden email]
www: http://www.tomasfejfar.cz




I guess translation, and possibly styling, can be moved into separate module. So they are in skeleton but at the same time it will be very easy to remove them.

-- 
Aleksey Khudyakov
Web developer, ZCE
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Artur Bodera
In reply to this post by SpiffyJr
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Kyle Spraggs <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ditto. Incredibly annoying having to constantly strip those out with every single clone.

That doesn't make sense to me.

If you have a selected set of features (and don't care about the rest) why don't you
create your own skeleton (based on the official one) ?? 

Again - for a beginner, it's easier to strip down than to add-on features.
For a professional/contributor - why haven't you created your own customised skeleton yet ?


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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Andreas Möller
Hello Artur,


Again - for a beginner, it's easier to strip down than to add-on features.

Again, only because the documentation still sucks at explaining how to set up an application in the first place.

Again, there shouldn't be a need for a skeleton application.

With a skeleton application, beginners will just copy and paste stuff into it - without understanding what's going on. The documentation should help to understand what's going on, while it doesn't. Not yet.


Best regards,

Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Marco Pivetta
In reply to this post by Artur Bodera
I do use the skeleton it because I sync it with the skeleton app git repo.
But AssetManager and the various twitter bootstrap modules out there handle the "replaced" part  :)

I'd keep public/index.php public/.htaccess, config/* composer.json and eventually the git submodules.

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius     

http://ocramius.github.com/



On 15 November 2012 17:58, Artur Bodera <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Kyle Spraggs <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ditto. Incredibly annoying having to constantly strip those out with every single clone.

That doesn't make sense to me.

If you have a selected set of features (and don't care about the rest) why don't you
create your own skeleton (based on the official one) ?? 

Again - for a beginner, it's easier to strip down than to add-on features.
For a professional/contributor - why haven't you created your own customised skeleton yet ?


-- 
      __
     /.)\   <a href="tel:%2B48%20695%20600%20936" value="+48695600936" target="_blank">+48 695 600 936
     \(./   [hidden email]




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

SpiffyJr
In reply to this post by Artur Bodera
Up to this point it's primarily been because ZF2 was changing a lot. Now that ZF2 is stable it wouldn't be much of an issue to create my own. I still think I would prefer a slim set of "base" modules that make up the app rather than one Application module. Perhaps I'll investigate making that a reality.


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



On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Artur Bodera <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Kyle Spraggs <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ditto. Incredibly annoying having to constantly strip those out with every single clone.

That doesn't make sense to me.

If you have a selected set of features (and don't care about the rest) why don't you
create your own skeleton (based on the official one) ?? 

Again - for a beginner, it's easier to strip down than to add-on features.
For a professional/contributor - why haven't you created your own customised skeleton yet ?


-- 
      __
     /.)\   <a href="tel:%2B48%20695%20600%20936" value="+48695600936" target="_blank">+48 695 600 936
     \(./   [hidden email]




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: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Roediger, Tim

The Skeleton is also used by quite a few modules to do testing with Travis CI. It’s good to be able to test modules inside an ‘official’ standard bare bones app. Creating personal versions of skeleton goes against that aim.

 

Tim Roediger

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kyle Spraggs
Sent: Friday, 16 November 2012 6:39 AM
To: Artur Bodera
Cc: Rob Allen; <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [zf-contributors] Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

 

Up to this point it's primarily been because ZF2 was changing a lot. Now that ZF2 is stable it wouldn't be much of an issue to create my own. I still think I would prefer a slim set of "base" modules that make up the app rather than one Application module. Perhaps I'll investigate making that a reality.



Kyle S

Blog | GitHubTwitter

 

"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



On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Artur Bodera <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Kyle Spraggs <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ditto. Incredibly annoying having to constantly strip those out with every single clone.

 

That doesn't make sense to me.

 

If you have a selected set of features (and don't care about the rest) why don't you

create your own skeleton (based on the official one) ?? 

 

Again - for a beginner, it's easier to strip down than to add-on features.

For a professional/contributor - why haven't you created your own customised skeleton yet ?



-- 
      __
     /.)\   <a href="tel:%2B48%20695%20600%20936" target="_blank">+48 695 600 936
     \(./   [hidden email]


 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Enrico Zimuel-2
In reply to this post by weierophinney
Hi Matthew,

i think this is a good idea, we need to remove everything and provide
only a minimal skeleton in order to run a ZF2 application.

On 11/14/2012 07:47 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney 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?
>


--
Enrico Zimuel
Senior PHP Engineer     | [hidden email]
Zend Framework Team     | http://framework.zend.com
Zend Technologies Ltd.
http://www.zend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

BullfrogBlues

Hi,

I've been watching the dicussion on this and figure I can give some feedback which might be of use.

Let me first say, I'm not actively using zf2, but I've played around with it and I've used the skeleton app.

I have experience developing a multilingual application so I was somewhat impressed by the translation features. I could instantly see what problems it solves for me. As for the rest of the skeleton, I don't really have complaints about it. However, I think if I was coming to zf for the first time my comments might be very different.

When this discussion first went live my initial impression was that ideally you would have two skeletons, a uber minimalistic one, and then an uber frills, rainbows and unicorns one. But then I had a look around the all the modules that people are developing. Do you really need a showcase skeleton app? I don't think you do.

From my point of view, if I want to see how to do something I'm going to go and take look at some modules and see how others are doing it. I might even end up using the module rather than writing my own, which is the whole point of the new modular architecture.

On noobs and the skeleton app / quick start:

- If you go through the quick start, you will need to install a .po editor for the translation features. This could be seen as issue for a noob, because what's the signal to noise ratio of devs interested in multilingual/non-multilingual apps?

- I also see Composer being a real hurdle for noobs. I even find it to be a hurdle. (noob, right?) But it depends on what the target demographic is. I just wanted to see if If I liked zf2, I'm not sure I need to know about Composer for that. Yes, Composer is part of why I might choose zf2, but I think it's probably better to gradually introduce me to the featuresets that I might be interested in.

+1 for a uber minimilist skeleton app

Regards,

Gerard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Artur Bodera
In reply to this post by Roediger, Tim
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Roediger, Tim <[hidden email]> wrote:

The Skeleton is also used by quite a few modules to do testing with Travis CI. It’s good to be able to test modules inside an ‘official’ standard bare bones app. Creating personal versions of skeleton goes against that aim.

I think testing is beyond the scope of this discussion. 
If you want to do interoperability testing, you need a custom app with a bunch of modules you're testing against.

If you want just to test if your module works with ZF2 MVC and MM, then you'll be happy with any simple or complex skeleton app that just uses Mvc\Application (which uses Mvc\ModuleManager).



After reading other comments, I'm leaning to:

1) For the purpose of RAD - we could have a "minimal" ZF2 MVC installation. Just a hello world, no deps, no real features, just works and is ready to "composer require" additional modules. A starting point for the 80% of us.

2) For the purpose of RAD - later on, you just make YOUR OWN skeleton (based off the minimal install or otherwise) and then clone/duplicate/checkout the hell out of it. You can also have a bunch of those if you really want (i.e. for different customer types, for different languages, for different server types, hosted/dedicated server etc.). 

4) For testing - see point 1)

3) For the purpose of education - we have current Skeleton.... but we could add-on even more stuff to it, so it's more complete, more useful and shows off a little bit what ZF2 is made of. It could include a bunch of Zfc modules, some fireworks and unicorns. We could rename it: "DemoApp" or "ShowcaseApp". We could have several demo apps, one for translations, one for doctrine, one for console etc.  I'm torn on the idea of having "demo modules" as opposed to "demo apps". Theoretically, if we had "demo modules" you could built your own, customised demo app with selected features. On the other hand it's a tad harder than say:  - download this translation demo app, extract and voilla! It works.


Thoughts ?


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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Andreas Möller

> For the purpose of education - we have current Skeleton.... but we could add-on even more stuff to it, so it's more complete, more useful and shows off a little bit what ZF2 is made of. It could include a bunch of Zfc modules, some fireworks and unicorns. We could rename it: "DemoApp" or "ShowcaseApp". We could have several demo apps, one for translations, one for doctrine, one for console etc.  I'm torn on the idea of having "demo modules" as opposed to "demo apps". Theoretically, if we had "demo modules" you could built your own, customised demo app with selected features. On the other hand it's a tad harder than say:  - download this translation demo app, extract and voilla! It works.

Or simply provide an excellent documentation, first.

Can't stop stressing this out again. And it bothers me quite a lot that you guys don't seem to care, but instead put efforts in a skeleton application. WTF?


Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Andreas Möller
In reply to this post by Artur Bodera
Hello list,


> 3) For the purpose of education - we have current Skeleton.... but we could add-on even more stuff to it, so it's more complete, more useful and shows off a little bit what ZF2 is made of. It could include a bunch of Zfc modules, some fireworks and unicorns. We could rename it: "DemoApp" or "ShowcaseApp". We could have several demo apps, one for translations, one for doctrine, one for console etc.  I'm torn on the idea of having "demo modules" as opposed to "demo apps". Theoretically, if we had "demo modules" you could built your own, customised demo app with selected features. On the other hand it's a tad harder than say:  - download this translation demo app, extract and voilla! It works.

Seriously, whom do you guys think you are building the skeleton application for?
For yourselves?
Are you using it?

Or do you just think it could be educative, while in fact it may not be, it's just that you don't realise because most of you discussing this issue already know how to build ZF2 applications and likely don't need a documentation?

Get real, please.

Everyone is referring to a documentation with all the stuff the skeleton application doesn't explain or contain, so it does make sense to have a decent documentation in the first place, rather than a skeleton that beginners will just fiddle around with and then give up because the documentation sucks.

Please, put your efforts into updating the documentation. Have a look at

* https://github.com/zendframework/zf2/graphs/contributors
* https://github.com/zendframework/zf2-documentation/graphs/contributors

and compare.

Why don't you rather contribute to the documentation? This will really help.


Best regards,

Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Spabby
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
"YOU GUYS"? 

Who do you think is contributing to this framework? A faceless corporation of minions or a small group of volunteers doing the best that they can. Improving the skeleton app and documentation are not mutually exclusive, we can accept pull requests on both at the same time. 

Pull requests are what improve the documentation. If you feel that strongly about the quality of the docs, then why not contribute to them rather than a full blown criticism of how "WE" suck at documenting. Why not become one of the "US" and start contributing to the documentation where you find holes. 

You make a valid point, but you make it in a confrontational and moaning way that just makes me want to ask you why you aren't contributing.

Thanks

Gary


On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Andreas Möller [via Zend Framework Community] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello list,


> 3) For the purpose of education - we have current Skeleton.... but we could add-on even more stuff to it, so it's more complete, more useful and shows off a little bit what ZF2 is made of. It could include a bunch of Zfc modules, some fireworks and unicorns. We could rename it: "DemoApp" or "ShowcaseApp". We could have several demo apps, one for translations, one for doctrine, one for console etc.  I'm torn on the idea of having "demo modules" as opposed to "demo apps". Theoretically, if we had "demo modules" you could built your own, customised demo app with selected features. On the other hand it's a tad harder than say:  - download this translation demo app, extract and voilla! It works.

Seriously, whom do you guys think you are building the skeleton application for?
For yourselves?
Are you using it?

Or do you just think it could be educative, while in fact it may not be, it's just that you don't realise because most of you discussing this issue already know how to build ZF2 applications and likely don't need a documentation?

Get real, please.

Everyone is referring to a documentation with all the stuff the skeleton application doesn't explain or contain, so it does make sense to have a decent documentation in the first place, rather than a skeleton that beginners will just fiddle around with and then give up because the documentation sucks.

Please, put your efforts into updating the documentation. Have a look at

* https://github.com/zendframework/zf2/graphs/contributors
* https://github.com/zendframework/zf2-documentation/graphs/contributors

and compare.

Why don't you rather contribute to the documentation? This will really help.


Best regards,

Andreas


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://zend-framework-community.634137.n4.nabble.com/Skeleton-app-making-it-more-minimal-tp4658075p4658140.html
To start a new topic under ZF Contributor, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from ZF Contributor, click here.
NAML

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Skeleton app -- making it more minimal

Artur Bodera
In reply to this post by Andreas Möller
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Andreas Möller <[hidden email]> wrote:
Seriously, whom do you guys think you are building the skeleton application for?
For yourselves?
Are you using it?

Or do you just think it could be educative, while in fact it may not be, it's just that you don't realise because most of you discussing this issue already know how to build ZF2 applications and likely don't need a documentation?


If we knew how to build an application, we wouldn't need skeleton *wink* ;-))


Each framework has some level of boilerplate code involved.
Skeleton was meant (since early beta times) to provide this boilerplate in an organised fashion.

Now that we're past release, skeleton still serves as a boilerplate (as illustrated in conversation above).

We are building it for ourselves and for everyone else who wants to quickly start working with ZF2 and I see nothing wrong with it.


This _does not_ deny nor reduce the importance of documentation.

Documentation _IS_ important. Demo apps/quick start are _ALSO_ important - it's basically "learning by example" as opposed to "learning by discovery/explanations". I personally approach most of new technologies by example - instead of churning through pages of documentation I prefer to browse code for "demo" "sample app" or "examples" or something similar. If for some reason, the technology does not provide those, I search documentation for "quick start" (with example code). If that's missing too, I'm going for the tutorial (if not utterly frustrated already ;) 

What you are probably looking for is ZF1 style of quick-start tutorial: 1) create an empty directory, create "library" an extract contents zf1.zip, 2) create public, controller, views, config dirs 3) create config/app.ini with the following contents [...] 4) create controllers/IndexController.php and type the following [...]

Is that it ^ ?


Or, are you just raging about the zf2 documentation sucking in general ? :-) (which is also understandable by me)

  

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



12