ZF 2.0 development begins!

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

ZF 2.0 development begins!

weierophinney
Administrator
Hey, all --

Those of you paying attention to the SVN commits will have noticed that
I just created a new branch, development-2.0. This is a new branch
intended for development of ZF 2.0.

    http://framework.zend.com/svn/framework/standard/branches/development-2.0

Initially, we will be working on the following tasks:

 * Stripping require_once calls
 * Updating the test suite:
   * Removing the AllTests suites (these are not necessary with newer
     versions of PHPUnit, and we have already established @group
     annotations throughout the framework)
   * Usage of TestHelper.php as a PHPUnit bootstrap; this will allow
     stripping out the require_once calls in each test class file.
 * Conversion to namespaces. This will be automated at first, but will
   then shift to manual changes
 * Testing of alternate plugin systems. I'm aiming for explicitness over
   magic in ZF 2.0, as this will give us huge improvements with
   performance, and hopefully make "grokking" the plugin system easier.

For the initial development, I'm trying to (a) gauge what works, and (b)
get a good sense for the amount of work ahead, so I can estimate a
release date. This latter will help determine if we should release a
1.11 release with new features between now and 2.0, or go straight to
2.0. As such, I'd like to ask that you refrain from working on
refactoring/rewriting components in the 2.0 branch for the time being,
until we've completed the tasks above; we may be reverting the branch on
occasion when we have failed experiments, or when we determine
particular approaches will be too expensive in terms of time or
resources.

I also am looking at infrastructure changes to help with the development
of 2.0; in particular, we're weighing whether to stick with Subversion,
or convert to Git. For this question, I'd really like input from all of
you, and have setup a page to track comments:

    http://framework.zend.com/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=20873259

Please let us know your opinions.

Looking forward to hearing from all of you as we start work on 2.0!

--
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: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Vincent de Lau
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Weier O'Phinney [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:06 AM
>
> Those of you paying attention to the SVN commits will have noticed that
> I just created a new branch, development-2.0. This is a new branch
> intended for development of ZF 2.0.

<snip>
 
> For the initial development, I'm trying to (a) gauge what works, and
> (b)
> get a good sense for the amount of work ahead, so I can estimate a
> release date. This latter will help determine if we should release a
> 1.11 release with new features between now and 2.0, or go straight to
> 2.0.


Hooray! Good to hear that the first steps are taken. I was wondering about
the current state of things.

You are also mentioning 1.11, so I'll take to opportunity to ask: What are
the plans for Doctrine integration?

I can imagine a 1.11 being published with Doctrine 1.2 integration, but I
would also understand if this has to wait for ZF 2.0, maybe even with
Doctrine 2.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm planning some refactoring of existing
code based on ZF 1.7 and 1.9. I'm also planning to start using Doctrine.
I've got a couple of options (on order of preference):
- wait for a ZF 1 version with Doctrine integration
- use 1.10 for now and wait with Doctrine until ZF 2.0 is released
- use 1.10 and do a custom Doctrine integration

I can understand that you don't have the definitive answer ready yet (see
point b), but I'll take any indication.

Thanks,

Vincent de Lau

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Ashley Broadley
It's great to know that 2.0 is starting to get on its way. And with  
this version I plan on becoming a lot more involved in contributing.

A few thoughts on Doctrine Integration:

In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF 2.0, then  
the integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version. Since  
both 2.0 versions will require PHP 5.3.

This would allow both languages to take advantage of the new PHP  
features, and keep things simpler with the use of namespaces.

If there was to be an integration with Doctrine 1.2, then I would  
recommend that it be released under the 1.X branch of ZF.

Doctrine 2 is already at the alpha4 stage, meaning that it has  
undergone quite a lot of development. This could also mean that the  
final release is also ready before the first release of ZF2.x.

Kind regards
Ashley Broadley

On 24 Feb 2010, at 23:57, "Vincent de Lau" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew Weier O'Phinney [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:06 AM
>>
>> Those of you paying attention to the SVN commits will have noticed  
>> that
>> I just created a new branch, development-2.0. This is a new branch
>> intended for development of ZF 2.0.
>
> <snip>
>
>> For the initial development, I'm trying to (a) gauge what works, and
>> (b)
>> get a good sense for the amount of work ahead, so I can estimate a
>> release date. This latter will help determine if we should release a
>> 1.11 release with new features between now and 2.0, or go straight to
>> 2.0.
>
>
> Hooray! Good to hear that the first steps are taken. I was wondering  
> about
> the current state of things.
>
> You are also mentioning 1.11, so I'll take to opportunity to ask:  
> What are
> the plans for Doctrine integration?
>
> I can imagine a 1.11 being published with Doctrine 1.2 integration,  
> but I
> would also understand if this has to wait for ZF 2.0, maybe even with
> Doctrine 2.
>
> The reason I'm asking is because I'm planning some refactoring of  
> existing
> code based on ZF 1.7 and 1.9. I'm also planning to start using  
> Doctrine.
> I've got a couple of options (on order of preference):
> - wait for a ZF 1 version with Doctrine integration
> - use 1.10 for now and wait with Doctrine until ZF 2.0 is released
> - use 1.10 and do a custom Doctrine integration
>
> I can understand that you don't have the definitive answer ready yet  
> (see
> point b), but I'll take any indication.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vincent de Lau
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Giorgio Sironi
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ashley Broadley <[hidden email]> wrote:
In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF 2.0, then the integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version. Since both 2.0 versions will require PHP 5.3.

I agree. Doctrine 2 will fill the lack of model infrastructure in Zend Framework.
Anyway, the set of changes listed by Matthew is already a big step towards simpler development (exploiting phpunit new features for example.)

Regards,
--
Giorgio Sironi
Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Julien Pauli-2
Yeah, PHPUnit is as complex as ZF is. Sebastian Bergmann makes a so
great job on this product , that PHPUnit migrations have to be well
thought.

I like the roadmap and getting ready to give hand for ZF2 ^^

J.Pauli

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Giorgio Sironi
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ashley Broadley <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF 2.0, then the
>> integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version. Since both 2.0
>> versions will require PHP 5.3.
>
> I agree. Doctrine 2 will fill the lack of model infrastructure in Zend
> Framework.
> Anyway, the set of changes listed by Matthew is already a big step towards
> simpler development (exploiting phpunit new features for example.)
>
> Regards,
> --
> Giorgio Sironi
> Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
> http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

David Caunt
In reply to this post by Giorgio Sironi
Integration of Doctrine 1 with ZF 1.11 might be a good way to test the water and then community feedback may inform ZF2's integration with Doctrine 2.

As keen as I am for ZF2, I think the amount of work to be done on the core is substantial and probably leaves enough time for a 1.11 release.

Are there any plans to maintain the 1.x series once 2.0 is released?

Dave

On 25 February 2010 10:46, Giorgio Sironi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ashley Broadley <[hidden email]> wrote:
In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF 2.0, then the integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version. Since both 2.0 versions will require PHP 5.3.

I agree. Doctrine 2 will fill the lack of model infrastructure in Zend Framework.
Anyway, the set of changes listed by Matthew is already a big step towards simpler development (exploiting phpunit new features for example.)

Regards,
--
Giorgio Sironi
Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi



--
Save Water...Drink Ouzo !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

weierophinney
Administrator
-- David Caunt <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Thursday, 25 February 2010, 11:13 AM +0000):
> Integration of Doctrine 1 with ZF 1.11 might be a good way to test the
> water and then community feedback may inform ZF2's integration with
> Doctrine 2.
>
> As keen as I am for ZF2, I think the amount of work to be done on the
> core is substantial and probably leaves enough time for a 1.11
> release.

Well, that's what we're trying to gauge at this point. It seems like a
substantial amount of work, but if the initial development I outlined
goes quickly, we may find ourselves working on the various
rewrites/refactors much sooner, which could lead to an earlier release.
Then again, it may take much longer, meaning a delay. I don't want to
make a call either way yet, and thus the uncertainty about a 1.11
release.

If we end up deciding to do a 1.11 branch, we'll very likely look at
doing integration with Doctrine 1.2 for the very reasons you describe,
but also to serve as an upgrade path for ZF users.

> Are there any plans to maintain the 1.x series once 2.0 is released?

This is another area we're trying to gauge -- whether to continue
maintenance on the 1.X branch following a 2.0 release.

My personal feeling is that if we do, any future releases would address
only critical bugs or security issues, and no new features. As long as
we develop new features on the 1.X series, we'll hamper adoption of 2.0.
In this vein, we'd likely do like the PHP project did, and do a new
minor release on the version 1 branch simultaneous to 2.0 that would be
for tracking those issues.

If we do, I'll likely look for a small team from the community to assist
as release masters for that branch.


> On 25 February 2010 10:46, Giorgio Sironi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ashley Broadley <[hidden email]>
>     wrote:
>
>         In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF 2.0, then
>         the integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version. Since
>         both 2.0 versions will require PHP 5.3.
>
>
>     I agree. Doctrine 2 will fill the lack of model infrastructure in Zend
>     Framework.
>     Anyway, the set of changes listed by Matthew is already a big step towards
>     simpler development (exploiting phpunit new features for example.)
>
>     Regards,
>     --
>     Giorgio Sironi
>     Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
>     http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
>     http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
>
>
>
>
> --
> Save Water...Drink Ouzo !

--
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: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Anthony Shireman
Moving from SVN to Git seems like quite a major switch. But, with the step from 1.X to 2.0 it seems like a good time to do it. I like the idea (as David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch with Doctrine 1 to test the waters and judging by the amount of work required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2 when the time comes. It's an exciting time to work with ZF and I'm looking forward to a time when ZF2 uses Git and Doctrine 2.


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- David Caunt <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Thursday, 25 February 2010, 11:13 AM +0000):
> Integration of Doctrine 1 with ZF 1.11 might be a good way to test the
> water and then community feedback may inform ZF2's integration with
> Doctrine 2.
>
> As keen as I am for ZF2, I think the amount of work to be done on the
> core is substantial and probably leaves enough time for a 1.11
> release.

Well, that's what we're trying to gauge at this point. It seems like a
substantial amount of work, but if the initial development I outlined
goes quickly, we may find ourselves working on the various
rewrites/refactors much sooner, which could lead to an earlier release.
Then again, it may take much longer, meaning a delay. I don't want to
make a call either way yet, and thus the uncertainty about a 1.11
release.

If we end up deciding to do a 1.11 branch, we'll very likely look at
doing integration with Doctrine 1.2 for the very reasons you describe,
but also to serve as an upgrade path for ZF users.

> Are there any plans to maintain the 1.x series once 2.0 is released?

This is another area we're trying to gauge -- whether to continue
maintenance on the 1.X branch following a 2.0 release.

My personal feeling is that if we do, any future releases would address
only critical bugs or security issues, and no new features. As long as
we develop new features on the 1.X series, we'll hamper adoption of 2.0.
In this vein, we'd likely do like the PHP project did, and do a new
minor release on the version 1 branch simultaneous to 2.0 that would be
for tracking those issues.

If we do, I'll likely look for a small team from the community to assist
as release masters for that branch.


> On 25 February 2010 10:46, Giorgio Sironi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ashley Broadley <[hidden email]>
>     wrote:
>
>         In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF 2.0, then
>         the integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version. Since
>         both 2.0 versions will require PHP 5.3.
>
>
>     I agree. Doctrine 2 will fill the lack of model infrastructure in Zend
>     Framework.
>     Anyway, the set of changes listed by Matthew is already a big step towards
>     simpler development (exploiting phpunit new features for example.)
>
>     Regards,
>     --
>     Giorgio Sironi
>     Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
>     http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
>     http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
>
>
>
>
> --
> Save Water...Drink Ouzo !

--
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: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Julien Pauli-2
Well, as far as there is a reference guide for GIT for those who never
used it (me, for example), why not...

J.Pauli

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anthony Shireman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Moving from SVN to Git seems like quite a major switch. But, with the step
> from 1.X to 2.0 it seems like a good time to do it. I like the idea (as
> David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch with Doctrine 1 to test the
> waters and judging by the amount of work required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2
> when the time comes. It's an exciting time to work with ZF and I'm looking
> forward to a time when ZF2 uses Git and Doctrine 2.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> -- David Caunt <[hidden email]> wrote
>> (on Thursday, 25 February 2010, 11:13 AM +0000):
>> > Integration of Doctrine 1 with ZF 1.11 might be a good way to test the
>> > water and then community feedback may inform ZF2's integration with
>> > Doctrine 2.
>> >
>> > As keen as I am for ZF2, I think the amount of work to be done on the
>> > core is substantial and probably leaves enough time for a 1.11
>> > release.
>>
>> Well, that's what we're trying to gauge at this point. It seems like a
>> substantial amount of work, but if the initial development I outlined
>> goes quickly, we may find ourselves working on the various
>> rewrites/refactors much sooner, which could lead to an earlier release.
>> Then again, it may take much longer, meaning a delay. I don't want to
>> make a call either way yet, and thus the uncertainty about a 1.11
>> release.
>>
>> If we end up deciding to do a 1.11 branch, we'll very likely look at
>> doing integration with Doctrine 1.2 for the very reasons you describe,
>> but also to serve as an upgrade path for ZF users.
>>
>> > Are there any plans to maintain the 1.x series once 2.0 is released?
>>
>> This is another area we're trying to gauge -- whether to continue
>> maintenance on the 1.X branch following a 2.0 release.
>>
>> My personal feeling is that if we do, any future releases would address
>> only critical bugs or security issues, and no new features. As long as
>> we develop new features on the 1.X series, we'll hamper adoption of 2.0.
>> In this vein, we'd likely do like the PHP project did, and do a new
>> minor release on the version 1 branch simultaneous to 2.0 that would be
>> for tracking those issues.
>>
>> If we do, I'll likely look for a small team from the community to assist
>> as release masters for that branch.
>>
>>
>> > On 25 February 2010 10:46, Giorgio Sironi
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >     On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ashley Broadley
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> >     wrote:
>> >
>> >         In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF
>> > 2.0, then
>> >         the integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version.
>> > Since
>> >         both 2.0 versions will require PHP 5.3.
>> >
>> >
>> >     I agree. Doctrine 2 will fill the lack of model infrastructure in
>> > Zend
>> >     Framework.
>> >     Anyway, the set of changes listed by Matthew is already a big step
>> > towards
>> >     simpler development (exploiting phpunit new features for example.)
>> >
>> >     Regards,
>> >     --
>> >     Giorgio Sironi
>> >     Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
>> >     http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
>> >     http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Save Water...Drink Ouzo !
>>
>> --
>> 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: ZF 2.0 development begins!

lcrouch
Maybe I'm turning into a crotchety old programmer, but I'm not really
impressed with git. We switched from svn to git at my day job and I
haven't really seen any big benefits aside from a few sweet syntactic
shortcuts like git stash. For larger projects with well-organized
branching I just haven't seen much additional value from git.

-L

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Julien Pauli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, as far as there is a reference guide for GIT for those who never
> used it (me, for example), why not...
>
> J.Pauli
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anthony Shireman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Moving from SVN to Git seems like quite a major switch. But, with the step
>> from 1.X to 2.0 it seems like a good time to do it. I like the idea (as
>> David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch with Doctrine 1 to test the
>> waters and judging by the amount of work required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2
>> when the time comes. It's an exciting time to work with ZF and I'm looking
>> forward to a time when ZF2 uses Git and Doctrine 2.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> -- David Caunt <[hidden email]> wrote
>>> (on Thursday, 25 February 2010, 11:13 AM +0000):
>>> > Integration of Doctrine 1 with ZF 1.11 might be a good way to test the
>>> > water and then community feedback may inform ZF2's integration with
>>> > Doctrine 2.
>>> >
>>> > As keen as I am for ZF2, I think the amount of work to be done on the
>>> > core is substantial and probably leaves enough time for a 1.11
>>> > release.
>>>
>>> Well, that's what we're trying to gauge at this point. It seems like a
>>> substantial amount of work, but if the initial development I outlined
>>> goes quickly, we may find ourselves working on the various
>>> rewrites/refactors much sooner, which could lead to an earlier release.
>>> Then again, it may take much longer, meaning a delay. I don't want to
>>> make a call either way yet, and thus the uncertainty about a 1.11
>>> release.
>>>
>>> If we end up deciding to do a 1.11 branch, we'll very likely look at
>>> doing integration with Doctrine 1.2 for the very reasons you describe,
>>> but also to serve as an upgrade path for ZF users.
>>>
>>> > Are there any plans to maintain the 1.x series once 2.0 is released?
>>>
>>> This is another area we're trying to gauge -- whether to continue
>>> maintenance on the 1.X branch following a 2.0 release.
>>>
>>> My personal feeling is that if we do, any future releases would address
>>> only critical bugs or security issues, and no new features. As long as
>>> we develop new features on the 1.X series, we'll hamper adoption of 2.0.
>>> In this vein, we'd likely do like the PHP project did, and do a new
>>> minor release on the version 1 branch simultaneous to 2.0 that would be
>>> for tracking those issues.
>>>
>>> If we do, I'll likely look for a small team from the community to assist
>>> as release masters for that branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 25 February 2010 10:46, Giorgio Sironi
>>> > <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ashley Broadley
>>> > <[hidden email]>
>>> >     wrote:
>>> >
>>> >         In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF
>>> > 2.0, then
>>> >         the integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version.
>>> > Since
>>> >         both 2.0 versions will require PHP 5.3.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     I agree. Doctrine 2 will fill the lack of model infrastructure in
>>> > Zend
>>> >     Framework.
>>> >     Anyway, the set of changes listed by Matthew is already a big step
>>> > towards
>>> >     simpler development (exploiting phpunit new features for example.)
>>> >
>>> >     Regards,
>>> >     --
>>> >     Giorgio Sironi
>>> >     Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
>>> >     http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
>>> >     http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Save Water...Drink Ouzo !
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
|

ZF 2.0 development begins!

Giorgio Sironi
In reply to this post by Anthony Shireman
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anthony Shireman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like the idea (as David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch with Doctrine 1 to test the waters and judging by the amount of work required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2 when the time comes.

Beware that Doctrine 1 and Doctrine 2 are very different: the fomer is ActiveRecord-based while the latter on the UnitOfWork pattern. Their metadata management is not the same and 2.x is a complete rewrite of 1.x.

Regards,
--
Giorgio Sironi
Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Giorgio Sironi
In reply to this post by lcrouch
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Luke Crouch <[hidden email]> wrote:
Maybe I'm turning into a crotchety old programmer, but I'm not really
impressed with git. We switched from svn to git at my day job and I
haven't really seen any big benefits aside from a few sweet syntactic
shortcuts like git stash. For larger projects with well-organized
branching I just haven't seen much additional value from git.

I'm also starting out with git. The point is in having the possibility to branch at every moment of development, and to use those branches to merge changes that would break the trunk. With distributed version control branch is very cheap and people working on unstable components will be happier.

--
Giorgio Sironi
Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Matthew Ratzloff
In reply to this post by lcrouch
Perhaps you don't do a lot of merging?  I'm constantly merging feature branches into trunk and even in Subversion 1.5+ this can be problematic, nevermind branching from branches.  This is the exact reason we've begun moving to Git at my workplace (many of us use it for personal development already).

-Matt

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Luke Crouch <[hidden email]> wrote:
Maybe I'm turning into a crotchety old programmer, but I'm not really
impressed with git. We switched from svn to git at my day job and I
haven't really seen any big benefits aside from a few sweet syntactic
shortcuts like git stash. For larger projects with well-organized
branching I just haven't seen much additional value from git.

-L

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Julien Pauli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, as far as there is a reference guide for GIT for those who never
> used it (me, for example), why not...
>
> J.Pauli
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anthony Shireman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Moving from SVN to Git seems like quite a major switch. But, with the step
>> from 1.X to 2.0 it seems like a good time to do it. I like the idea (as
>> David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch with Doctrine 1 to test the
>> waters and judging by the amount of work required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2
>> when the time comes. It's an exciting time to work with ZF and I'm looking
>> forward to a time when ZF2 uses Git and Doctrine 2.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> -- David Caunt <[hidden email]> wrote
>>> (on Thursday, 25 February 2010, 11:13 AM +0000):
>>> > Integration of Doctrine 1 with ZF 1.11 might be a good way to test the
>>> > water and then community feedback may inform ZF2's integration with
>>> > Doctrine 2.
>>> >
>>> > As keen as I am for ZF2, I think the amount of work to be done on the
>>> > core is substantial and probably leaves enough time for a 1.11
>>> > release.
>>>
>>> Well, that's what we're trying to gauge at this point. It seems like a
>>> substantial amount of work, but if the initial development I outlined
>>> goes quickly, we may find ourselves working on the various
>>> rewrites/refactors much sooner, which could lead to an earlier release.
>>> Then again, it may take much longer, meaning a delay. I don't want to
>>> make a call either way yet, and thus the uncertainty about a 1.11
>>> release.
>>>
>>> If we end up deciding to do a 1.11 branch, we'll very likely look at
>>> doing integration with Doctrine 1.2 for the very reasons you describe,
>>> but also to serve as an upgrade path for ZF users.
>>>
>>> > Are there any plans to maintain the 1.x series once 2.0 is released?
>>>
>>> This is another area we're trying to gauge -- whether to continue
>>> maintenance on the 1.X branch following a 2.0 release.
>>>
>>> My personal feeling is that if we do, any future releases would address
>>> only critical bugs or security issues, and no new features. As long as
>>> we develop new features on the 1.X series, we'll hamper adoption of 2.0.
>>> In this vein, we'd likely do like the PHP project did, and do a new
>>> minor release on the version 1 branch simultaneous to 2.0 that would be
>>> for tracking those issues.
>>>
>>> If we do, I'll likely look for a small team from the community to assist
>>> as release masters for that branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 25 February 2010 10:46, Giorgio Sironi
>>> > <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ashley Broadley
>>> > <[hidden email]>
>>> >     wrote:
>>> >
>>> >         In my opinion if Doctrine integration is to be left until ZF
>>> > 2.0, then
>>> >         the integrated version of Doctrine should be the 2.0 version.
>>> > Since
>>> >         both 2.0 versions will require PHP 5.3.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     I agree. Doctrine 2 will fill the lack of model infrastructure in
>>> > Zend
>>> >     Framework.
>>> >     Anyway, the set of changes listed by Matthew is already a big step
>>> > towards
>>> >     simpler development (exploiting phpunit new features for example.)
>>> >
>>> >     Regards,
>>> >     --
>>> >     Giorgio Sironi
>>> >     Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
>>> >     http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
>>> >     http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Save Water...Drink Ouzo !
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Matthew Ratzloff
In reply to this post by Giorgio Sironi
I don't think it would be beneficial to include Doctrine 1.x support in Zend Framework 1.x for this reason.  There is no real "upgrade" path from version 1 to 2; they are very different.  It also divides contributors' limited time, and the idea that you'll be working hard on something that will quickly be deprecated is not very motivating.

-Matt

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Giorgio Sironi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anthony Shireman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like the idea (as David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch with Doctrine 1 to test the waters and judging by the amount of work required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2 when the time comes.

Beware that Doctrine 1 and Doctrine 2 are very different: the fomer is ActiveRecord-based while the latter on the UnitOfWork pattern. Their metadata management is not the same and 2.x is a complete rewrite of 1.x.

Regards,
--
Giorgio Sironi
Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Court Ewing
Howdy,

I agree with this sentiment entirely.  While Doctrine 1.x is currently the stable series, plans already exist to drop support for it in a little over a year (according to the latest roadmap I've seen).  As this is a ZF2 email chain, we should focus on Doctrine 2 integration with ZF2.

Doctrine 2, while under heavy development, is actually in a pretty stable state.  Pretty much all of the currently implemented functionality will not be changing over the next few months, so this sort of integration could begin shortly after the initial ZF changes that Matthew has already described.

Court Ewing

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Matthew Ratzloff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't think it would be beneficial to include Doctrine 1.x support in Zend Framework 1.x for this reason.  There is no real "upgrade" path from version 1 to 2; they are very different.  It also divides contributors' limited time, and the idea that you'll be working hard on something that will quickly be deprecated is not very motivating.

-Matt


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Giorgio Sironi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anthony Shireman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like the idea (as David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch with Doctrine 1 to test the waters and judging by the amount of work required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2 when the time comes.

Beware that Doctrine 1 and Doctrine 2 are very different: the fomer is ActiveRecord-based while the latter on the UnitOfWork pattern. Their metadata management is not the same and 2.x is a complete rewrite of 1.x.

Regards,
--
Giorgio Sironi
Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi




--
Regards,
Court Ewing
610-304-1624
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

till
In reply to this post by Giorgio Sironi
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Giorgio Sironi
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Luke Crouch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I'm turning into a crotchety old programmer, but I'm not really
>> impressed with git. We switched from svn to git at my day job and I
>> haven't really seen any big benefits aside from a few sweet syntactic
>> shortcuts like git stash. For larger projects with well-organized
>> branching I just haven't seen much additional value from git.
>
> I'm also starting out with git. The point is in having the possibility to
> branch at every moment of development, and to use those branches to merge
> changes that would break the trunk. With distributed version control branch
> is very cheap and people working on unstable components will be happier.
>

+1

@Luke

If you're not convinced, I urge you to check in something like Magento
into subversion and then into git. =) The pure performance is reason
enough to switch. That, and the "almost-anything-merger". :)

Till

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

David Caunt
In reply to this post by Court Ewing
I'm inclined to agree with Court and Matthew then - focus on doing a cracking job of ZF2 and Doctrine 2 and lets make something awesome!



On 25 February 2010 18:24, Court Ewing <[hidden email]> wrote:
Howdy,

I agree with this sentiment entirely.  While Doctrine 1.x is currently the stable series, plans already exist to drop support for it in a little over a year (according to the latest roadmap I've seen).  As this is a ZF2 email chain, we should focus on Doctrine 2 integration with ZF2.

Doctrine 2, while under heavy development, is actually in a pretty stable state.  Pretty much all of the currently implemented functionality will not be changing over the next few months, so this sort of integration could begin shortly after the initial ZF changes that Matthew has already described.

Court Ewing


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Matthew Ratzloff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't think it would be beneficial to include Doctrine 1.x support in Zend Framework 1.x for this reason.  There is no real "upgrade" path from version 1 to 2; they are very different.  It also divides contributors' limited time, and the idea that you'll be working hard on something that will quickly be deprecated is not very motivating.

-Matt


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Giorgio Sironi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anthony Shireman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like the idea (as David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch with Doctrine 1 to test the waters and judging by the amount of work required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2 when the time comes.

Beware that Doctrine 1 and Doctrine 2 are very different: the fomer is ActiveRecord-based while the latter on the UnitOfWork pattern. Their metadata management is not the same and 2.x is a complete rewrite of 1.x.

Regards,
--
Giorgio Sironi
Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi




--
Regards,
Court Ewing
610-304-1624



--
Save Water...Drink Ouzo !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
I already created a _initDoctrine extensible.

Benjamin (beberlei) is dealing to turn it into a Resource to be
autoloaded by Bootstrap. It should be available soon.

I also integrated the CLI too, but nothing using the Zend_Tool since
it'd be duplicating most of what Doctrine2 already supports.
If you have any questions feel free to ask on a separate thread.


Cheers,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:39 PM, David Caunt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm inclined to agree with Court and Matthew then - focus on doing a
> cracking job of ZF2 and Doctrine 2 and lets make something awesome!
>
>
> On 25 February 2010 18:24, Court Ewing <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I agree with this sentiment entirely.  While Doctrine 1.x is currently the
>> stable series, plans already exist to drop support for it in a little over a
>> year (according to the latest roadmap I've seen).  As this is a ZF2 email
>> chain, we should focus on Doctrine 2 integration with ZF2.
>>
>> Doctrine 2, while under heavy development, is actually in a pretty stable
>> state.  Pretty much all of the currently implemented functionality will not
>> be changing over the next few months, so this sort of integration could
>> begin shortly after the initial ZF changes that Matthew has already
>> described.
>>
>> Court Ewing
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Matthew Ratzloff
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think it would be beneficial to include Doctrine 1.x support in
>>> Zend Framework 1.x for this reason.  There is no real "upgrade" path from
>>> version 1 to 2; they are very different.  It also divides contributors'
>>> limited time, and the idea that you'll be working hard on something that
>>> will quickly be deprecated is not very motivating.
>>> -Matt
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Giorgio Sironi
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anthony Shireman <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea (as David Caunt mentioned) of releasing a 1.X branch
>>>>> with Doctrine 1 to test the waters and judging by the amount of work
>>>>> required decide to go with Doc2+ZF2 when the time comes.
>>>>
>>>> Beware that Doctrine 1 and Doctrine 2 are very different: the fomer is
>>>> ActiveRecord-based while the latter on the UnitOfWork pattern. Their
>>>> metadata management is not the same and 2.x is a complete rewrite of 1.x.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Giorgio Sironi
>>>> Piccolo Principe & Web Engineer
>>>> http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/giorgiosironi
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Court Ewing
>> 610-304-1624
>
>
>
> --
> Save Water...Drink Ouzo !
>



--
Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer
CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant
Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9215-8480
MSN: [hidden email]
URL: http://blog.bisna.com
São Paulo - SP/Brazil

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

lcrouch
In reply to this post by till
I'll make a parting note and then leave the git discussion so it
doesn't overwhelm other more relevant things like Doctrine.

I would probably be happier with git for ZF since ZF is much looser in
organization and has many independent contributors. If we do git,
let's be sure to set some workflow guidelines though as I would hate
to waste a bunch of overhead (mine and MWO's) with the branching.

-L

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:30 PM, till <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Giorgio Sironi
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Luke Crouch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm turning into a crotchety old programmer, but I'm not really
>>> impressed with git. We switched from svn to git at my day job and I
>>> haven't really seen any big benefits aside from a few sweet syntactic
>>> shortcuts like git stash. For larger projects with well-organized
>>> branching I just haven't seen much additional value from git.
>>
>> I'm also starting out with git. The point is in having the possibility to
>> branch at every moment of development, and to use those branches to merge
>> changes that would break the trunk. With distributed version control branch
>> is very cheap and people working on unstable components will be happier.
>>
>
> +1
>
> @Luke
>
> If you're not convinced, I urge you to check in something like Magento
> into subversion and then into git. =) The pure performance is reason
> enough to switch. That, and the "almost-anything-merger". :)
>
> Till
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ZF 2.0 development begins!

Ryan Albertson
Another consideration of mine would be if Doctrine is used, would ZF use yaml like symfony does for the generation of schemas and model classes by making Zend_Tool work with yaml like the symfony CLI?

Ryan Albertson
123