>Actually he kind of has sort of a point here, in that this is the kind of
>thing that does make your eyes glaze over, unless you have a deep
>understanding of ZF. It's like, if it's so auto, why do I need to do it?
I'm not specifically addressing the following points to you personally
David...
This is where I disagree and where people tend to assume that ZF should tie
your shoelaces and wipe your bum. Other frameworks may or may not _fully_
configure this type of thing for you but at the expense of flexibility.
If developers expect that you can customise your modules; e.g.the location and
path to your modules, and the directory structure of your modules, the class
names of the module resources and so on... Then it's not unreasonable to
expect that this flexibility requires a little, and i stress *little*, bit of
effort.
Considering that by passing only the basepath as a config arguement to the
module autoloader class, and by adhering to the default project module
directory structure and class naming; developers can have out of the box
module autoloading of: Forms, Table Gateways, Models, View Filters, View
Helpers, plugin classes, service classes.
I think what I'm trying to say here is, if a developer is not prepared to
instantiate a class with a simple configuration array or object, or is not
prepared to take a trip to the freely available API documentation to
understand the class libraries he is using. In my opinion they have no right
or place to *ever* complain about the code they are using, and should probably
not be in this line of work in the first place.
--
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes."
☘ Oscar Wilde
没有评论:
发表评论