Page 4 of 4
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:10 pm
by Luke
I am done with this garbage... I'm gonna bake my own I guess. I really didn't want to have to do that.

I don't really have the time.
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:45 pm
by Christopher
Have you tried Zend_Filter and Zend_Validate? Those are the ones we got in before Karwin drifted back to Input_Filter. You could cobble something together with those, but you will have to wrapper them because they take a value instead of a container.
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:47 pm
by Luke
Alright, I'll just have to do that. As lame as that is. So Karwin is the guy in charge of Zend Framework, right? Is he doing acid? Mushrooms? Maybe crack? LOL
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:23 pm
by Christopher
He actually seems like a pretty good guy ... but they are all a little old school.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:01 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Bill is sound really. Have you maybe looked at Bryce Lohr's proposal which fell by the way side when the current ZF 1.0 version of validation/filters was steamrolled through?
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:26 am
by Luke
Looks kind of like what I'm trying to do. Interesting. I can't imagine how anybody could possibly think Zend_Filter_Input is a worthy validation/filtering method. It's nothing short of ridiculous. Zend_Filter_Input used to be bad (although I used it, arborint showed me the errors of my ways), but this second incarnation is HORRIBLE.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Yes it is. But a lot of us commented to that effect and yet it remains

. I think Maurice Fonk went so far as to start a project to just reverse the changes and progress from the original version. I think Bryce's proposal came closest to a workable solution that made sense (to me anyway) but it doesn't seem to have moved forward since it was accepted into the Laboratory. Maybe for Zend 2.0

.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:08 pm
by Luke
My faith in this project is starting to wither. I really had high hopes for the framework, but it seems that its design-by-committee nature is stifling development.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:36 pm
by Christopher
I have been frustrated recently with maintaining sites built on Zend, Cake and Symfony. There is too much weird wiring working around basic design flaws in them.
I have begun moving all my client's sites to PHP5. Once I do that I think I may go back to my Skeleton code and upgrade it all to PHP5 so I can start using for larger projects. I will probably make it Zend compatible to an extent because I like some of their components. Frameworks like Skeleton are a little more work initially because more things have to be done explicitly, but I find in the long run it is easier to customize and maintain a system that combines objects following basic patterns rather than a system with an ever growing list of configuration methods to adapt non-standard designs.
One of the Cake guys, Chris Hartjes, did a
podcast recently. I was struck by two things about his talk. First that he used the opportunity to criticize Zend and Code Igniter which are Cake's main competitors.
The second was his comparison of what he called Glue vs. Full Stack frameworks. Now there is some validity to the notion of loosely coupled vs tightly coupled classes being a design decision. But what struck me most is that he was unknowingly comparing the bad design of the frameworks mentioned. Glue vs. Full Stack is not an either/or decision. It is bad design that causes either too loose of coupling or too tight of coupling. The designs of those frameworks are what they are because to the limits of their designers. We see in this thread Zend making these kinds of bad decisions.
There is no reason what a framework cannot support building multiple full stacks on a single code base -- except the design skill of the current crop of PHP framework designers.
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:43 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
My faith in this project is starting to wither. I really had high hopes for the framework, but it seems that its design-by-committee nature is stifling development.
Well, consider some of the decisions of the last year or so. They're weighted in my direction (as a contributor's personal experience) so excuse the bias and reload the other way a bit

. I think the gracing point is that nothing is irreversible - I like the framework, and I'm willing to do a little subclassing on anything I disagree with, and I will continue supporting it.
1. Zend_View reaches 1.0, and after 4+ months of campaigning, complaints, and general confusion still hasn't a single worthwhile measure for supporting atypical features of View structuring (layouts, partials, composite view, etc.)
2. Bryce Lohr's proposal is superceded by an alternative which sucks for input validation/filtering
3. Zend decide to write their own OpenID library - when one already existed, and was proposed, and even worked

. This is the hillarious one for me because I had a library 95% complete. At the moment I have Zend_Service_Yadis, Zend_Crypt_DiffieHellman, and Zend_Crypt_Hmac all proposed and accepted - and they existed solely for my own OpenID proposal. One would think that if a guy shows up with OpenID experience, that a project looking for an OpenID solution would put two and two together. OpenID advocates aren't that numerous...
They're some withering points for me. I don't get these kinds of decisions but they are made. Of course, it's not really the ZF's fault - I doubt there are many projects immune to bad decisions of some kind. It's practically a given in open source. Zend's responsibility to get releases out there on schedule, so every now and again something gets sacrificed to the Release Manager deity or some funky internal Zend wishlist.
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:49 am
by Luke
Well as you can see, while my confidence in the framework is withering, I still haven't stopped using it... and I am not interested in using any others. Something about it has kept me interested. I think that something may be you two (arborint and maugrim), so thanks for the help and encouragement.