On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
<matthew@zend.com> wrote:
> -- Ondrej Ivanič <ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com> wrote
> Could it be made simpler? Yes, very likely. Would it lose flexibility
> in doing so? Yes, very likely.
This wasn't a call to remove some functionality from ZF.
> One of the guiding principles of ZF since the beginning is to provide
> flexible and extensible solutions so that ZF users can adapt the
> framework to their needs -- and not the other way around. Most other
> frameworks take the "convention over configuration" approach which,
Yes, you are right flexibility is good thing I don't like frameworks
which forced me to use specific naming conventions and tweak millions
configuration options.
> I have ideas for simplifying the call graph. But all of the ideas above
> are quite important to the goals of the project.
Could you share your ideas?
--
Ondrej Ivanic
(ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com)
没有评论:
发表评论