Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

<h2>Bridge Doctrine2</h2>

<p>Discuss the doctrine bridge for integration within our ecosystem. A discussion was around the list of <a href="http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/Doctrine2">adapters doctrine</a>.</p>

<p>What are the parties involved in the bridge:</p>
<ul>
<li>DbAL</li>
<li>ORM</li>
<li>MongoDB</li>
<li>CouchDB</li>
<li>Migrations</li>
<li>Doctrine extensions (timestampable, translatable, loggable, slugglable, tree, etc.)</li>
</ul>

<ac:macro ac:name="unmigrated-inline-wiki-markup"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[

Bridge Doctrine2 - Should we discuss this?
Choices Your Vote Current Result: (0 Total Votes) Voters

Yes

(0 votes, 0%)

No

(0 votes, 0%)
All voters:
]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:macro>

<h2>Standard distribution</h2>

<p>Can we package some modules (like debug toolbar) in standard distribution?<br />
What modules are included?</p>

<ac:macro ac:name="unmigrated-inline-wiki-markup"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[

Standard distribution - Should we discuss this?
Choices Your Vote Current Result: (0 Total Votes) Voters

Yes

(0 votes, 0%)

No

(0 votes, 0%)
All voters:
]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:macro>

<h2>Roadmap</h2>

<ul>
<li>What is the roadmap to alpha, beta, and RC?</li>
<li>How to organize volunteer contributors?</li>
<li>What are the prototypes on hold?</li>
</ul>

<ac:macro ac:name="unmigrated-inline-wiki-markup"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[

Roadmap 2011 - Should we discuss this?
Choices Your Vote Current Result: (0 Total Votes) Voters

Yes

(0 votes, 0%)

No

(0 votes, 0%)
All voters:
]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:macro>

Labels:
None
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.
  1. Sep 20, 2011

    <p>Voted once, voted for everything... Thank goodness I voted 'Yes' for the first time <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /></p>

  2. Sep 20, 2011

    <p>Sorry, it's my fault. It's fixed, and we must vote again.</p>

  3. Sep 21, 2011

    <p>While I have no problem with having Doctrine2 integration points, I don't feel it is part of Core or the standard distribution, and I think this discussion could wait until after the first Alpha release.</p>

  4. Sep 22, 2011

    <p>@H Hatfield: it's your point of view <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> Doctrine bridge <em>must</em> be in standard distrib evidently</p>

  5. Sep 22, 2011

    <p>Isn't supporting Doctrine a no-brainer? Ralph has already made great in roads on Zend\Db but there are many of us who prefer a full ORM on larger projects and getting some sort of momentum on that front should be supported even if only to the extent of knowing what a bridge should look like.</p>

    1. Sep 23, 2011

      <p>I completely agree that supporting Doctrine is important. My suggestion for postponing this discussion is simply because I think it would be better to wait until after Alpha is released which (hopefully) would be a couple more meetings. </p>

    2. Sep 27, 2011

      <p>Supporting it; sure. Although, to me should it be part of the "core"? Maybe an integration class would work that helps bridge the gap but a full integration of every Doctrine component? It seems like overkill. There are still quite a bit of us that cannot stand the ORM portion of Doctrine (myself included). I much prefer a data mapper pattern without all of the crazy additional features which Zend\Db makes work very well (although we're looking at not even using an abstraction layer at this point; if we changed DB's we'd be rewriting all over the place).</p>

      1. Sep 27, 2011

        <p>You're asking questions which exactly should be answered in the meeting if you had voted "yes" <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /></p>

        <p>Should it be in core? You can't say when you don't open up the discussion. A brigde or full integration? Same holds here, also for if you want to use it or not (ie is it optional or not, though that's a pretty obvious question).</p>

        <p>Just to clarify, I said yes because the possibilities of Doctrine (migrations, fixtures etc) are beyond the scope of ZF (I think) and still a must-have for large webapplications.</p>

  6. Sep 23, 2011

    <p>I don't think we need to talk about the Standard Distribution any more. We've talked about it at each of the last two IRC meetings, and the understanding we've come to is:</p>
    <ul>
    <li>Classes in "Core", "DB and Data Formats", "Security, "i18n/l10n", and "MVC" are considered "Standard", and will be the focus of 2.0.0 stable.</li>
    <li>Other classes outside "Standard" will be included in the "Full" distribution if and only if they pass review by the time we are ready to release an RC.<br />
    I don't think we should spend time in the meeting on this.</li>
    </ul>

    1. Sep 27, 2011

      <p>Maybe I am wrong here; but I think that what people actually really are looking for here is how will things make it into the full distribution? For instance; if I want to contribute a component aka Zend\Services\Google\C2dm what is the process going to look like to get it into the distribution? </p>

      <p>I know we are still looking at the proposal process; but with all of the new items that have come up in the last few months it seems like people are also thinking that you might be able to find it with something like an addons store that can be downloaded separately. Anyhow; just what I thought I was reading <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /></p>

      1. Sep 27, 2011

        <p>When it's clear how to install modules and/or components, the step of contribution is fairly simple to make. If modules can be installed eg from a github repo, you can easy "discover" in pear-style that repo and install the module: no proposal required for inclusion.</p>

        <p>Thus, it's better to hold that discussion until the installation process is better defined (imho).</p>

  7. Sep 28, 2011

    <p>Doctrine is a separate library. If a bridge is needed,it should not be the main focus. And should not be a blocking factor to getting ZF2 released. Can it be released as a separate component at the same time as ZF2 is released, yes IF it passes the QA. I certainly feel that Matthews team should not focus on this bridge. If it comes from the community and it is suitable for inclusion perfect. But it should at the moment not be of Matthews team their concern.</p>