|
Author
|
Message
|
|
Daniel Guerrier
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 4:44:05 am
Hello All, I'm am going to begin to create a community driven site and am in the process of deciding what to use to build it. I am assuming that eZ can be used to do this but it seems that maintaining a site built on top of eZ is not so easy. I looked at the components and am thinking of using that to build my solution but came across the PHP framework. What are the fundemental differences between the components and the framwork?
|
|
Derick Rethans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 5:28:42 am
Hello Daniel, I am not aware about "the PHP framework". Do you mean the Zend framework perhaps? Derick
|
|
Daniel Guerrier
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 6:50:27 am
Yes, that is what I am refereing to. http://framework.zend.com/
|
|
Derick Rethans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 8:03:00 am
Hello Daniel, Okay, that framework is something not done by the PHP team, but solely by Zend. We can hardly provide a non-biased opinion on this, so I wil try to explain what our major goals are. We try not to be a fit-all framework as we believe that that restricts the creativity and is bound to create conflicts between the system and the developer as the system might do something in a different way then the developer wants. Instead the eZ components are released as a library of independent set of powerful tools that aid you developing your web application. We try to include components that are useful for real life and serious applications and we will extend the components with that in mind. The components should besides being useful also performant as that is something that we find very important too. In the near future (1.1) we will also offer some components (URL) that help you with gathering information from URLs on top of which you can easily build your own MVC ideas. Another important factor is that we have a rigorous testing schema where we have test cases for every method in our code base. Our development model requires the writing of test cases before any kind of implementation. We aim to improve stability with this. A component library is not useful without good documentation, so documentation is another thing we focus on heavily. For each components bundle version there is separate documentation available through http://ez.no/doc/components/overview . We provide both tutorials to help you on the way with a specific component and thorough API documentation.
regards,
Derick
|
|
Daniel Guerrier
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 8:17:00 am
Thanks for the info.
The goals of the zend framework project seems to be very similar to what you guys are doing.
The clean IP and simple to use components for building apps. Using the zend framework is optional so it would seems as if you guys are on the flipside of the same coin. Has anyone thought of joining together, rather than have two seperate teams use resources to build two similar products?
|
|
Derick Rethans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 11:46:53 am
Hello Daniel, we've been talking in the past about collaborating but at that moment we were already almost done with the first release while they just announced it. The two libraries do not conflict so you can pick the best component for your specific needs from each of the libraries, or from other ones such as PEAR if you prefer. We also ship the components under the New BSD license because it gives our users the most flexible solution.
regards,
Derick
|
|
Paul Borgermans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 11:49:34 am
Zend_Search is a very interesting component at least, based on Lucene like the commercial extension. So, in reality, the Zend framework and ez components are attractive for ez publish 4.x or a new application. But no doubt that 4.x won't have any dependence on Zend framework ;-) Zend search alone (running in a separate apache instance with php5) is even attractive for the 3.x series (and on top in my short list for finding a search solution for the 3.x series in the short term). --paul
eZ Publish, eZ Find, Solr expert consulting and training
http://twitter.com/paulborgermans
|
|
Derick Rethans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 12:06:50 pm
Hello Paul, we can't use any of their code as it is under a GPL incompatible license.
regards,
Derick
|
|
Paul Borgermans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 12:34:00 pm
Hi Derick Did I overlook something? mmm I did. The license seems to be very liberal ... but indeed, GPL does not live nicely with it if you are not the author. Grr I really hate this licensing stuff/trouble between open source projects. --paul
eZ Publish, eZ Find, Solr expert consulting and training
http://twitter.com/paulborgermans
|
|
Derick Rethans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 12:39:07 pm
Paul, it is indeed the same license as PHP has (besides the name change) and that one conflicts with the GPL too. We tried to avoid this problem by picking the New BSD license for our components.
regards,
Derick
|
|
Paul Borgermans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 12:52:21 pm
Derick, Immediate thought: then any PHP based code can not be GPL-ed? I'm gonna look a bit deeper into this ... whatever I/we do here in search improvements should be GPL-ed and shared on pubsvn. --paul
eZ Publish, eZ Find, Solr expert consulting and training
http://twitter.com/paulborgermans
|
|
Derick Rethans
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 1:02:47 pm
Paul, (please beware that I am not a license expert) no... ofcourse you can put PHP *code* (as in scripts, applications) under any license you might want to put it under. The scripts are not derivates of the PHP engine at all. It does mean that PHP can not be linked against any GPL library nor can PECL host any extensions that are under the GPL, or link against GPL libraries. However, there are a couple of PHP scripts/applications and quite a few PEAR packages that chose to use the same PHP license. These scripts and packages can not be used with GPL applications without problems.
regards,
Derick
|
|
Daniel Guerrier
|
Tuesday 14 March 2006 1:03:06 pm
Open Source was supposed to promote collaboration, but all the incompatible licenses that are floating around seems to cause as many problems as proprietary code. BSD, GPL v2, v3 etc... It's amazing that everyone couldn't standardize first on what is meant by open source and second to use a simple common license that takes into account a situation where one may need to license proprietary code by having a standard lifetime release form that would be signed by the owner. Seems simple to me, but it never is when a lawyer gets involved. Anyway, I guess try to use both and see how it works out.
|
