Quantcast

ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

weierophinney
Administrator
This is the status of the ZF team for the week ending 9 July 2010.

I haven't written status reports for a couple of weeks now, but have
tweeted a few items. Following is a more detailed report of what myself,
Ralph, and Alex have been working on.

First, we've completed the major thrust of namespace migration, which
includes all components except those found in Zend_Service.

    IF YOU ARE A MAINTAINER OF ONE OR MORE Zend_Service COMPONENTS, and
    you have not yet migrated your component(s), please do so ASAP!
    Components not migrated will be _REMOVED_ prior to the beta release.

Second, I've been working on syncing SVN trunk to Git master for the
last several days. I have been able to accomplish this due to the fact
that the Git repo was built off a git-svn clone of ZF I've been using
and maintaining. While git was able to handle a good portion of the
merge, I've needed to manually handle files that have been modified in
svn trunk but renamed in Git (the bulk of these are due to changes in
naming of abstract classes and/or renaming interfaces to remove the
"Interface" keyword from the name). I'm 75% done with the manual
changes, and hope to have them done Monday or Tuesday next week. At that
time, I'll run another quick sync from SVN trunk (this should be much
quicker, as it will be less than a week of changes, compared to > 2
months), and then tag to indicate the namespace migration is over.

Third, both Ralph and Alex have started doing implementation plans for
ZF components -- specifically DB and PDF. Please review these documents
and provide feedback:

  * DB
    http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/DB+2.0+Requirements

  * PDF
    http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/Zend_Pdf+2.0+Requirements

Fourth, there has been some debate surrounding the decision to move to
ACRONYM casing over MixedCasing for classes named after or utilizing
known acronyms. The consensus on the team is that there are good
arguments on either side of the fence, and the most important thing is
to choose something. To that end, we're opening a poll to the greater ZF
community to determine the preference.

Fifth, we're going to do a 1.11 release. This will be the last release
on the 1.X branch. We plan to release early in the autumn. If you have a
proposal that you feel should be included:

 * Be aware that you will need to do both ZF1 and ZF2 versions. If you
   cannot commit to both, then please only submit it for inclusion in
   ZF2.

 * Please work with the CR Team for review of your proposal, as well as
   code review once you feel the component is ready.

 * Please aim to have the proposal code complete, tested, and documented
   by 31 August 2010.

Finally, in the next 1-2 weeks, I'll be working on an implementation
roadmap for ZF2, indicating areas of functionality we want to work on,
and naming the various milestones (though not necessarily specifying
dates). This will mainly be targetting core components such as
autoloading, plugin loading, and the MVC layer. If you are working on
other components and planning rewrites or refactoring, please start
developing implementation plans, including requirements and
justifications, for the CR team and my team to review.

Have a great weekend, and happy ZF'ing!
--
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

Kevin McArthur-2
> Fifth, we're going to do a 1.11 release. This will be the last release
> on the 1.X branch. We plan to release early in the autumn. If you have a
> proposal that you feel should be included.
Can you expand on the exact policy for the 1.x line post 2.0. Will it be feature-frozen with maintenance releases as bugs are found, or dropped from the development cycle entirely?

K


Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

> This is the status of the ZF team for the week ending 9 July 2010.
>
> I haven't written status reports for a couple of weeks now, but have
> tweeted a few items. Following is a more detailed report of what myself,
> Ralph, and Alex have been working on.
>
> First, we've completed the major thrust of namespace migration, which
> includes all components except those found in Zend_Service.
>
>     IF YOU ARE A MAINTAINER OF ONE OR MORE Zend_Service COMPONENTS, and
>     you have not yet migrated your component(s), please do so ASAP!
>     Components not migrated will be _REMOVED_ prior to the beta release.
>
> Second, I've been working on syncing SVN trunk to Git master for the
> last several days. I have been able to accomplish this due to the fact
> that the Git repo was built off a git-svn clone of ZF I've been using
> and maintaining. While git was able to handle a good portion of the
> merge, I've needed to manually handle files that have been modified in
> svn trunk but renamed in Git (the bulk of these are due to changes in
> naming of abstract classes and/or renaming interfaces to remove the
> "Interface" keyword from the name). I'm 75% done with the manual
> changes, and hope to have them done Monday or Tuesday next week. At that
> time, I'll run another quick sync from SVN trunk (this should be much
> quicker, as it will be less than a week of changes, compared to > 2
> months), and then tag to indicate the namespace migration is over.
>
> Third, both Ralph and Alex have started doing implementation plans for
> ZF components -- specifically DB and PDF. Please review these documents
> and provide feedback:
>
>   * DB
>     http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/DB+2.0+Requirements
>
>   * PDF
>     http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/Zend_Pdf+2.0+Requirements
>
> Fourth, there has been some debate surrounding the decision to move to
> ACRONYM casing over MixedCasing for classes named after or utilizing
> known acronyms. The consensus on the team is that there are good
> arguments on either side of the fence, and the most important thing is
> to choose something. To that end, we're opening a poll to the greater ZF
> community to determine the preference.
>
> Fifth, we're going to do a 1.11 release. This will be the last release
> on the 1.X branch. We plan to release early in the autumn. If you have a
> proposal that you feel should be included:
>
>  * Be aware that you will need to do both ZF1 and ZF2 versions. If you
>    cannot commit to both, then please only submit it for inclusion in
>    ZF2.
>
>  * Please work with the CR Team for review of your proposal, as well as
>    code review once you feel the component is ready.
>
>  * Please aim to have the proposal code complete, tested, and documented
>    by 31 August 2010.
>
> Finally, in the next 1-2 weeks, I'll be working on an implementation
> roadmap for ZF2, indicating areas of functionality we want to work on,
> and naming the various milestones (though not necessarily specifying
> dates). This will mainly be targetting core components such as
> autoloading, plugin loading, and the MVC layer. If you are working on
> other components and planning rewrites or refactoring, please start
> developing implementation plans, including requirements and
> justifications, for the CR team and my team to review.
>
> Have a great weekend, and happy ZF'ing!
>  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

Benoît Durand
In reply to this post by weierophinney
Le 9 juil. 10 à 22:11, Matthew Weier O'Phinney a écrit :
>     IF YOU ARE A MAINTAINER OF ONE OR MORE Zend_Service COMPONENTS,  
> and
>     you have not yet migrated your component(s), please do so ASAP!
>     Components not migrated will be _REMOVED_ prior to the beta  
> release.
Will only non-migrated Zend_Service components be removed ?

> Fifth, we're going to do a 1.11 release. This will be the last release
> on the 1.X branch. We plan to release early in the autumn.
I am happy to read this.

>  * Please work with the CR Team for review of your proposal, as  
> well as
>    code review once you feel the component is ready.
How we can contact the CR Team in order to with them?

--
Benoît Durand
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

Maghiel Dijksman
In reply to this post by weierophinney

On 9-7-2010 22:11, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> Fifth, we're going to do a 1.11 release. This will be the last release
> on the 1.X branch. We plan to release early in the autumn. If you have a
> proposal that you feel should be included:
>    

I'm working on some proposals mostly based on service classes I've
developed and am maintaining for my employee.
I wanted to wait with actually proposing them to the community untill I
completely finished them, but I'll send them around
now to see how the community acceptance is. They are ofcourse written
for ZF 1.x as they're used in a production application,
so I feel they should be included before 1.x is dropped.


Regards,

Maghiel Dijksman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

Renan de Lima
In reply to this post by Benoît Durand
regarding Zend_Service

I think zf2 is a good moment to review some practices in
Zend_Service_*. We have a lot of clients implemented. For those
migration/re-implementation we could work following a "guide". The
point is that we don't have a best practices for those components,
each client is a mistery.

Is there a prefered protocol to implement, rest, soap, raw http? I
think this issue should be discussed.

How deep the returned values should be handled? Client should be
responsable for making requests, response reading easer or both? Why?
I think the responsibilities of those clients should be clearer. For
now I feel zend_sevice_* components looks like "box of surprise"
(brazilian expression for things we expect anything). We don't know if
a zf service client will solve our problem or it will be one more
layer to acces the service.

See, I don't have answer for them. I just think this
guide/best-praticies for ws client implementation is required and a
good idea for this moment.

--
Renan de Lima Barbosa
gtalk/msn: [hidden email]
skype: renandelima
+55 61 8166-7755
renandelima.com



2010/7/9 Benoît Durand <[hidden email]>:

> Le 9 juil. 10 à 22:11, Matthew Weier O'Phinney a écrit :
>>
>>    IF YOU ARE A MAINTAINER OF ONE OR MORE Zend_Service COMPONENTS, and
>>    you have not yet migrated your component(s), please do so ASAP!
>>    Components not migrated will be _REMOVED_ prior to the beta release.
>
> Will only non-migrated Zend_Service components be removed ?
>
>> Fifth, we're going to do a 1.11 release. This will be the last release
>> on the 1.X branch. We plan to release early in the autumn.
>
> I am happy to read this.
>
>>  * Please work with the CR Team for review of your proposal, as well as
>>   code review once you feel the component is ready.
>
> How we can contact the CR Team in order to with them?
>
> --
> Benoît Durand
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

Pieter Kokx
In reply to this post by Benoît Durand
At the moment as the CR Team, we don't have any official way of
contacting us. Currently, the best way is to join #zftalk.dev on IRC,
and ask for the CR Team members.

Our IRC nicks:

* kokx (Pieter Kokx)
* Freeaqingme (Dolf Schimmel)
* DASPRiD (Ben Scholzen)
* Akrabat (Rob Allen)
* farrelley (Shaun Farrel)
* PadraicB (Padraic Brady)

--
Best Regards,

Pieter Kokx
PHP Developer
Zend Framework Community Review Team


On 09-07-10 22:48, Benoît Durand wrote:

> Le 9 juil. 10 à 22:11, Matthew Weier O'Phinney a écrit :
>>     IF YOU ARE A MAINTAINER OF ONE OR MORE Zend_Service COMPONENTS, and
>>     you have not yet migrated your component(s), please do so ASAP!
>>     Components not migrated will be _REMOVED_ prior to the beta release.
> Will only non-migrated Zend_Service components be removed ?
>
>> Fifth, we're going to do a 1.11 release. This will be the last release
>> on the 1.X branch. We plan to release early in the autumn.
> I am happy to read this.
>
>>  * Please work with the CR Team for review of your proposal, as well as
>>    code review once you feel the component is ready.
> How we can contact the CR Team in order to with them?
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: [unsure] Re: [zf-contributors] ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

Steven Brown-2
I'm also available sometimes...my nick is WallabyTed

-----Original Message-----
From: Pieter Kokx [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, 10 July 2010 7:31 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [unsure] Re: [zf-contributors] ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

At the moment as the CR Team, we don't have any official way of
contacting us. Currently, the best way is to join #zftalk.dev on IRC,
and ask for the CR Team members.

Our IRC nicks:

* kokx (Pieter Kokx)
* Freeaqingme (Dolf Schimmel)
* DASPRiD (Ben Scholzen)
* Akrabat (Rob Allen)
* farrelley (Shaun Farrel)
* PadraicB (Padraic Brady)

--
Best Regards,

Pieter Kokx
PHP Developer
Zend Framework Community Review Team


On 09-07-10 22:48, Benoît Durand wrote:

> Le 9 juil. 10 à 22:11, Matthew Weier O'Phinney a écrit :
>>     IF YOU ARE A MAINTAINER OF ONE OR MORE Zend_Service COMPONENTS, and
>>     you have not yet migrated your component(s), please do so ASAP!
>>     Components not migrated will be _REMOVED_ prior to the beta release.
> Will only non-migrated Zend_Service components be removed ?
>
>> Fifth, we're going to do a 1.11 release. This will be the last release
>> on the 1.X branch. We plan to release early in the autumn.
> I am happy to read this.
>
>>  * Please work with the CR Team for review of your proposal, as well as
>>    code review once you feel the component is ready.
> How we can contact the CR Team in order to with them?
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

Thomas D.
In reply to this post by weierophinney
Hi,

Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

> [...]
> While git was able to handle a good portion of the merge, I've needed
> to manually handle files that have been modified in svn trunk but
> renamed in Git (the bulk of these are due to changes in naming of
> abstract classes and/or renaming interfaces to remove the "Interface"
> keyword from the name). I'm 75% done with the manual changes, and hope
> to have them done Monday or Tuesday next week. At that time, I'll run
> another quick sync from SVN trunk (this should be much quicker, as it
> will be less than a week of changes, compared to > 2 months), and then
> tag to indicate the namespace migration is over.
> [...]

Is the renaming of abstract classes and interface based on a final decision,
how abstract classes and interfaces should be named in ZF 2.0 or is the
current naming just a proposal (thought it was justified [1])?

When yes, it would be nice if someone could update the ZF 2.0 coding
standards page [2] and add a link to this wiki page to [3], so everyone
knows about it ;-)


See also:
=========
[1]
<http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFPROP/Naming+conventions+for+2.0+-+
Matthew+Ratzloff?focusedCommentId=15564822#comment-15564822>

[2]
<http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/ZF+2.0+Coding+Standards+Adden
dums>

[3]
<http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFPROP/Naming+conventions+for+2.0+-+
Matthew+Ratzloff>


--
Regards,
Thomas


Regards,
Thomas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ZF 2.0 Status: 09-Jul-2010

weierophinney
Administrator
-- Thomas D. <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Saturday, 10 July 2010, 02:48 PM +0200):

> Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> > [...]
> > While git was able to handle a good portion of the merge, I've needed
> > to manually handle files that have been modified in svn trunk but
> > renamed in Git (the bulk of these are due to changes in naming of
> > abstract classes and/or renaming interfaces to remove the "Interface"
> > keyword from the name). I'm 75% done with the manual changes, and hope
> > to have them done Monday or Tuesday next week. At that time, I'll run
> > another quick sync from SVN trunk (this should be much quicker, as it
> > will be less than a week of changes, compared to > 2 months), and then
> > tag to indicate the namespace migration is over.
> > [...]
>
> Is the renaming of abstract classes and interface based on a final decision,
> how abstract classes and interfaces should be named in ZF 2.0 or is the
> current naming just a proposal (thought it was justified [1])?

The decision was based on discussions on this list and on IRC, as well
as use cases identified in other frameworks and libraries. The standards
have wide acceptance at this time.

> When yes, it would be nice if someone could update the ZF 2.0 coding
> standards page [2] and add a link to this wiki page to [3], so everyone
> knows about it ;-)

It's already up-to-date ([2] is the chosen standard). The renaming that
happened was due to the fact that we had a lot of classes like the
following:

    Zend_Controller_Request_Abstract
    Zend_Filter_Interface
    etc.

To get these to conform with 2.0 standards, they needed to be renamed.
Some sample renames:
   
    Zend\Controller\Request\AbstractRequest
    Zend\Filter\Filter


--
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
Loading...