<ac:macro ac:name="toc" />
<li>Date: 28 September 2011, 17:00-18:00 UTC</li>
<li><ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="2011-09-28+Meeting+Agenda" /><ac:link-body>Agenda</ac:link-body></ac:link></li>
<li>Moderator: Padraic Brady (nickname PadraicB)</li>
<p>This discussion was based on the <ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="RFC+-+Doctrine2" /><ac:link-body>Doctrine2 RFC</ac:link-body></ac:link>. </p>
<p>Basically, we decided that the RFC is too vague currently, but that such functionality would be nice to have. Additionally, the consensus is that it needs a community member to drive the initiative, assuming one steps up.</p>
<p><strong>tl;dr</strong>: If you want Doctrine 2 support in ZF2, step up and get a concrete proposal started!</p>
<p>This discussion was based on the <ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="RFC - What will the ZF2 distribution include" /><ac:link-body>Standard Distribution RFC</ac:link-body></ac:link>.</p>
<p>Matthew moved that we've talked about this enough already, and that the discussion appears to be more about if new component/module additions might make it into the standard distribution, and/or how we'd package them. </p>
<p>There was some question as to when functionality might be a candidate for a module rather than a component in the framework. Suggestions are that if it includes cross-cutting concerns or if they are primarily application-targetted (e.g., a security "layer" for applications), a module would be appropriate.</p>
<p>The specific addition that came up was debugging, and everyone agreed that this would go in – <em>if complete</em>. General consensus appears to be that we'll take these on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<p>Paddy proposed that we mark the RFC as final, but include points such as the above (that new components will be evaluated for inclusion when complete).</p>
<p><strong>tl;dr</strong>: The minimum Standard Distribution is already defined, but we'll evaluate complete components and modules for inclusion on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<p>The agenda item was simply to discuss the roadmap to alpha, beta, and RC. However, Matthew dropped a bombshell.</p>
<p>So, in discussions with Zend, my team, the CR team, and a number of users and contributors...</p>
<p>We plan to do a "google" like beta cycle. I.e., betas that may add features, change APIs, etc.</p>
<p>Stability would occur at RC1 (and likely a beta or two before it)</p>
<p>The idea behind this is, well, to get more eyes on the framework.</p>
<p>Making a splash as a beta is more likely to get people playing and testing the framework than an alpha or dev release would (which is something we know from experience at this point).</p>
<p>So, with that in mind, we want to do our first beta for ZendCon, which would allow us to make a nice splash that would get lots of press and stuff.</p></blockquote>
<p>The basic idea is that we'd have an extended beta cycle. Each beta would focus on a discrete set of functionality derived from the list of components agreed upon for the standard distribution. We would <em>not</em> assure BC between betas. When the standard distribution components are complete, we'd be free to create an RC, at which point BC would be enforced.</p>
<p>The road to the first beta thus includes:</p>
<li>Get auth, feed components using new HTTP api - this is over 1/2 done already</li>
<li>Refactor various Server components to use the HTTP API and Dispatchable interface</li>
<li>Get rudiments of a convenience API for controllers in place (started discussing on list)</li>
<li>Potentially provide a "skeleton" app using the new MVC that folks can clone and start with</li>
<li>Move ZendMvc and ZendModule modules into library</li>
<li>Get the initial packaging scripts functional and in place</li>
<p>Concerns raised for the first beta:</p>
<li>The MVC must be documented (Matthew indicates this is partially in place and can be completed quickly)</li>
<li>Should likely get a basic Options implementation in place for major classes in order to have visibility.</li>
<p>Otherwise, there was general enthusiasm for the proposal.</p>
<p>In terms of the beta process (following the initial beta), the main concerns are:</p>
<li>Determining which components are nearing completion (either new, proposed components, or refactoring of existing components). The Zend and CR teams will need to start contacting maintainers to get a better feel on these. Ideally, we can get the maintainers to post their progress on the ML.</li>
<li>Determining order in which components should be targetted for beta releases.</li>
<p>The plan at this time is to list off those components planned for the standard distribution, and start gathering information on status. From there, we'll derive a roadmap, and start fixing dates for each beta release. This should also help us get an estimate for the first RC.</p>
<p>Following this (look for "Sep 28 17:42:22" in the log timeline), we opened the floor, as we'd covered the topics. Discussion turned to the "skeleton" application and/or module, and what it should include, as well as the capabilities of Pyrus for distribution (Ralph Schindler detailed how Pyrus can provide packages directly from GitHub repositories). Additionally, we discussed a timeline for getting the ZendMvc and ZendModule modules into the library (by Friday, 1 Oct 2011), and the status of things such as the Router. Read the log for full details.</p>
<p><strong>tl;dr</strong>: We're going all Google beta, and you can expect the first drop within the month!</p>
<ac:macro ac:name="html"><ac:parameter ac:name="output">html</ac:parameter><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[
white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; /* Mozilla, supported since 1999 */
white-space: -pre-wrap; /* Opera 4 - 6 */
white-space: -o-pre-wrap; /* Opera 7 */
white-space: pre-wrap; /* CSS3 - Text module (Candidate Recommendation) http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#white-space */
word-wrap: break-word; /* IE 5.5+ */
border: 1px solid darkgray;
Sep 28 17:04:02 <PadraicB> So, welcome to today's meeting. There are no refunds.
Sep 28 17:04:13 <PadraicB> http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-09-28+Meeting+Agenda
Sep 28 17:04:36 <PadraicB> Starting with the obvious - Doctrine Bridge.
Sep 28 17:04:57 <jurians> There is a RFC: http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/RFC+-+Doctrine2
Sep 28 17:05:10 <jurians> those are rather random thoughts for bridging stuff
Sep 28 17:05:35 <weierophinney> I'd argue there's not much to talk about at this time.
Sep 28 17:05:42 <NickBelhomme> why is it needed as part of the full release?
Sep 28 17:05:45 <NickBelhomme> optional ok
Sep 28 17:05:57 <PadraicB> I suppose the biggie is, is there anyone here willing to work on it?
Sep 28 17:06:04 <weierophinney> I think there's general consensus that it would be good to offer... but there are no specifics to really debate right now.
Sep 28 17:06:17 <hhatfield> weierophinney: +1
Sep 28 17:06:22 <jurians> weierophinney +1
Sep 28 17:06:27 <ezimuel> weierophinney +1
Sep 28 17:06:45 <NickBelhomme> and also IF it is going to be developed for initial release => it must come from community
Sep 28 17:06:49 <NickBelhomme> so weierophinney +1
Sep 28 17:07:07 <ralphschindler> yep, +1 weierophinney
Sep 28 17:07:58 <NickBelhomme> PadraicB, proceed to next topic
Sep 28 17:08:01 <PadraicB> So in summary, it would be nice to have, we need someone in the community to work on?
Sep 28 17:08:03 <weierophinney> NickBelhomme, correct. Too many other things we should be doing for the stable release.
Sep 28 17:08:14 <weierophinney> PadraicB, that sounds about right.
Sep 28 17:08:19 <NickBelhomme> PadraicB, +1
Sep 28 17:09:06 <PadraicB> Alrighty then, I might sound out on the mailing list if intiilapa doesn't beat me to it. See if anyone can work on a prototype or RFC.
Sep 28 17:09:32 <PadraicB> Next topic, Standard Ditribution.
Sep 28 17:09:52 <weierophinney> Judging by the comments, I'm not 100% sure what we need to talk about here, either.
Sep 28 17:10:01 <weierophinney> I feel like a big naysayer today.
Sep 28 17:10:29 <PadraicB> I think we have concensus on what goes in - there was a query as to whether debugging tooling should in included (pending the appearance of debug tooling )
Sep 28 17:10:29 <weierophinney> It sounds like the main point, though, is folks having confusion about how new components make it into the distribution?
Sep 28 17:10:50 <weierophinney> I'd argue that if the debugging tooling is complete, it goes in.
Sep 28 17:11:02 <PadraicB> weierophinney +1
Sep 28 17:12:05 <ezimuel> weierophinney +1
Sep 28 17:12:12 <PadraicB> I suppose to remove any doubt we should mark up your RFC as being final/accepted - and include points like this which are contingent on future developments?
Sep 28 17:12:28 <weierophinney> PadraicB, that makes sense.
Sep 28 17:12:32 <weierophinney> PadraicB, +1
Sep 28 17:12:59 <weierophinney> PadraicB, also, perhaps the CR team can make a splash about how you plan to handle incoming proposals?
Sep 28 17:13:53 <PadraicB> weierophinney, yep - I intend holding a CR Team meeting - we seem to have fallen off the pace as a group and the number of support tasks is a lot...
Sep 28 17:14:09 <weierophinney> cool
Sep 28 17:14:14 <PadraicB> I'll try to figure out when to hold it around the weekend (for next week perhaps)
Sep 28 17:14:31 <weierophinney> PadraicB, I think early next week would be good. In part due to the next topic.
Sep 28 17:14:32 <EvanDotPro> so, to answer the question in the agenda, it would be appropriate for some modules to be in the standard distribution (perhaps in modules/ where ZendMvc and ZendModule are now, which are destined for library/Zend)
Sep 28 17:15:32 <PadraicB> EvanDotPro, I think the topic assumes Modules, but we can interpret it as components also. I know intiilapa was considering something like a standard debug toolbar when developing an app (for example) which would be a true Module
Sep 28 17:16:17 <weierophinney> That makes sense to me. I assumed once we started prototyping modules that we'd eventually have some – there are things like debug and security/authentication/acls that make sense primarily as modules.
Sep 28 17:16:19 <EvanDotPro> yeah the debugging thing to me sounds like a module to me.
Sep 28 17:16:26 <PadraicB> But good question, is there scope to include actual Modules (i.e. controllers etc) in the standard distro?
Sep 28 17:17:11 <PadraicB> So that's Yes to Modules? (Point to be documented on RFC)
Sep 28 17:17:32 <EvanDotPro> i would say yes... anyone against?
Sep 28 17:17:43 <NickBelhomme> YES to some modules. But it needs to be moderated...
Sep 28 17:18:06 <weierophinney> PadraicB, when the functionality is cross-cutting, yes.
Sep 28 17:18:12 <NickBelhomme> only the ones really needed for 80% of the applications
Sep 28 17:18:13 <PadraicB> NickBelhomme, everything in the standard distro would be moderated, if you mean our normal QA/review?
Sep 28 17:18:27 <NickBelhomme> I am not talking about QA
Sep 28 17:18:38 <NickBelhomme> I am talking about whether it should be in standard
Sep 28 17:18:59 <NickBelhomme> standard is when it is going to be used in 80 of the apps
Sep 28 17:19:06 <PadraicB> NickBelhomme, answer is Yes I believe
Sep 28 17:19:12 <weierophinney> PadraicB, +1
Sep 28 17:19:18 <NickBelhomme> I mean acl, security, etc is needed everywhere, debugging also
Sep 28 17:19:56 <PadraicB> I think we've covered the topic...and then some.
Sep 28 17:20:32 <PadraicB> So next up is the Roadmap. I'm sure weierophinney has pages of text to start typing now
Sep 28 17:20:43 <weierophinney> Yep
Sep 28 17:20:44 <weierophinney>
Sep 28 17:20:55 <NickBelhomme> very interested now!!!
Sep 28 17:21:07 <weierophinney> So, in discussions with Zend, my team, the CR team, and a number of users and contributors...
Sep 28 17:21:28 »» rdohms is late...
Sep 28 17:21:46 <weierophinney> We plan to do a "google" like beta cycle. I.e., betas that may add features, change APIs, etc.
Sep 28 17:21:59 <weierophinney> Stability would occur at RC1 (and likely a beta or two before it)
Sep 28 17:22:00 <PadraicB> rdohms, np Didn't miss much yet
Sep 28 17:22:27 <weierophinney> The idea behind this is, well, to get more eyes on the framework.
Sep 28 17:22:48 <weierophinney> Making a splash as a beta is more likely to get people playing and testing the framework than an alpha or dev release would
Sep 28 17:22:55 <weierophinney> (which is something we know from experience at this point)
Sep 28 17:23:20 <weierophinney> So, with that in mind, we want to do our first beta for ZendCon, which would allow us to make a nice splash that would get lots of press and stuff.
Sep 28 17:23:25 <guilhermeblanco> hi guys
Sep 28 17:23:31 <weierophinney> Greets, guilhermeblanco
Sep 28 17:23:33 <weierophinney> You're late.
Sep 28 17:23:34 <rdohms> PadraicB: did we start with roadmap?
Sep 28 17:23:44 <weierophinney> rdohms, that's what we're starting now.
Sep 28 17:23:45 <guilhermeblanco> weierophinney: Sleepy... worked all nigh tlong
Sep 28 17:23:45 <NickBelhomme> ZendCon weierophinney, what a surprise
Sep 28 17:24:08 <PadraicB> rdohm, no - but other two topics needs little debate (don't worry weierophinney will post the log later)
Sep 28 17:24:10 »» rdohms just read "doctrine2 bridge" and bitchslapped guilhermeblanco into the room
Sep 28 17:24:12 <weierophinney> NickBelhomme, well, the point is that there are not many conferences where we could make an announcement like this with as much noise.
Sep 28 17:24:20 <NickBelhomme> true
Sep 28 17:24:44 <weierophinney> So, I've been brainstorming around what we need to do for that.
Sep 28 17:24:49 <weierophinney> My thoughts right now:
Sep 28 17:25:13 <weierophinney> * Get auth, feed components using new HTTP api - this is over 1/2 done already
Sep 28 17:25:26 <weierophinney> * Refactor various Server components to use the HTTP API
Sep 28 17:25:49 <PadraicB> rdohms, guilhermeblanco, summary of the Doctrine Bridge topic was to wait for someone to write an RFC for what might be needed before discussing further.
Sep 28 17:25:50 <weierophinney> * Get rudiments of a convenience API for controllers in place (started discussing on list)
Sep 28 17:26:18 <weierophinney> * Potentially provide a "skeleton" app using the new MVC that folks can clone and start with
Sep 28 17:26:26 <weierophinney> * Move ZendMvc and ZendModule modules into library
Sep 28 17:26:44 <weierophinney> And, of course, get our packaging scripts written
Sep 28 17:26:58 <weierophinney> And do all this in around 2 weeks.
Sep 28 17:27:01 <guilhermeblanco> PadraicB: I can do something
Sep 28 17:27:03 <guilhermeblanco> =)
Sep 28 17:27:06 <weierophinney> So, I'm opening the floor.
Sep 28 17:27:40 <PadraicB> guilhermeblanco, you might check with intiilapa who raised the topic - maybe some collaboration on an initial RFC (code not essential)
Sep 28 17:27:47 <rdohms> weierophinney: so we need to petition longer days?
Sep 28 17:28:05 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: ambitious, but i don't think it's impossible if we can squeeze more hours out of people
Sep 28 17:28:08 <weierophinney> rdohms, LOL
Sep 28 17:28:08 <intiilapa> PadraicB: rfc doctrine2? Dolf if I remember
Sep 28 17:28:13 <NickBelhomme> and you also going to document how to use zf2? Because otherwise only the real core community will test it
Sep 28 17:28:17 <NickBelhomme> the others will be lost...
Sep 28 17:28:25 <guilhermeblanco> weierophinney: maybe if we change the license but still have no CLA is possible?
Sep 28 17:28:34 <weierophinney> NickBelhomme, yes, planned. I have rudimentary docs in the ZendMvc module already, but they need updating.
Sep 28 17:28:36 <EvanDotPro> NickBelhomme: won't your book be done by then?
Sep 28 17:28:36 <NickBelhomme> people who aren't afraid of digging deep
Sep 28 17:28:37 <PadraicB> weierophinney, documentation <-- sort of essential
Sep 28 17:28:42 <jurians> intiilapa, see http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/RFC+-+Doctrine2
Sep 28 17:28:43 <weierophinney> Won't take long to get those done.
Sep 28 17:28:50 <NickBelhomme> EvanDotPro, you know it will be done when zf2 is done
Sep 28 17:28:51 <NickBelhomme>
Sep 28 17:28:59 <PadraicB> I know we have basics though, so probably not a biggie
Sep 28 17:29:07 <intiilapa> jurians: I know this page
Sep 28 17:29:10 <weierophinney> and there's not a ton of stuff that needs to be done code wise, really.
Sep 28 17:29:27 <rdohms> weierophinney: i can try to rally up some people but 2 weeks is a squeeze for newcomers, only oldschool guys like ramon and such
Sep 28 17:29:56 <weierophinney> rdohms, yeah, I know it's a short time frame. But that's also a reason for having the "google" style beta – we can limit features.
Sep 28 17:30:07 <intiilapa> weierophinney: skeleton is not guestbook quickstart?
Sep 28 17:30:18 <PadraicB> weierophinney, I think there's enough in your list. We might want to get some basic Options implemented for the major classes (so it's out there for the beta while we roll it out across lesser used components)
Sep 28 17:30:22 <intiilapa> some news of cache, locale, db timeline?
Sep 28 17:30:25 <weierophinney> intiilapa, I'd say one stripped down to just the Application module of that.
Sep 28 17:30:35 <weierophinney> PadraicB, +1
Sep 28 17:30:56 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: maybe one extra module? to show the difference between the "main" module and subsequent modules after that (require less config, etc)
Sep 28 17:31:00 <weierophinney> intiilapa, not right now, but, again, that's rationale for the beta process - we can focus on discrete items per-beta.
Sep 28 17:31:06 <mabe_> news of cache: yea I can restart coding but with an UMTS-stick
Sep 28 17:31:18 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, maybe the PageController module I showed you? That could be interesting.
Sep 28 17:31:19 <PadraicB> mabe_, hehe.
Sep 28 17:31:26 »» Miles8of9 asks for Doctrine 2 support and more powerful zend tool
Sep 28 17:31:48 <weierophinney> Miles8of9, is that an offer to do the doctrine2 rfc I hear?
Sep 28 17:31:57 <intiilapa> PageController?
Sep 28 17:32:06 <weierophinney> intiilapa, in my zf2sandbox on git.mwop.net
Sep 28 17:32:10 <weierophinney> I'll post it to the lsit.
Sep 28 17:32:22 <weierophinney> Does what I propose seem doable?
Sep 28 17:32:29 <Miles8of9> ehmmm no.... i'm too noob... in was a suggestion for ZF gods
Sep 28 17:32:33 <PadraicB> intiilapa, on your last response - by an RFC we need something a bit detailed. Not sure if Dolf had more than a short outline.
Sep 28 17:32:34 <weierophinney> and if so, do we want to start sketching out later betas?
Sep 28 17:32:45 <PadraicB> weierophinney +1. Seems fine.
Sep 28 17:32:50 <intiilapa> I guess
Sep 28 17:32:51 <jurians> PadraicB, this "RFC" is more a brainstorm atm
Sep 28 17:32:55 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: +1, i think we can do it.
Sep 28 17:33:36 <weierophinney> We'll of course message the goal of our betas EXPLICITLY so follks know they can't complain about stability between betas.
Sep 28 17:34:05 <NickBelhomme> so beta at zendcon, RC1 when?
Sep 28 17:34:08 <weierophinney> But I think it also suits the roadmap better – my hope is it enables things like what EvanDotPro and I did with the MVC this past month to occur regularly.
Sep 28 17:34:19 <PadraicB> weierophinney, we do need to figure out what should be the focus on upcoming betas. Hard to do that until we know which components need the emphasis, whether they are closing in on "completion" themselves, etc. Might be worth a ML post to catch up on major components like Cache, Locale, etc.
Sep 28 17:34:24 <weierophinney> NickBelhomme, depends on how many betas we need to get the standard distribution stable.
Sep 28 17:34:39 <weierophinney> PadraicB, absolutely
Sep 28 17:35:04 <weierophinney> and we can ping folks like mabe_ thomas, et. al. to post their progress there and list what needs to be done.
Sep 28 17:35:20 <PadraicB> NickBelhomme, when it's done? Any date we set would be arbitrary - still dates also turn everyone towards a deadline. An internal RC1 date could be worth having.
Sep 28 17:35:51 <rdohms> weierophinney: be as communicative as possible of the goals and progress and i'll do my bes to get more working hands in..
Sep 28 17:36:03 <weierophinney> PadraicB, +1. I think we need to start outlining the pieces still in progress or needing work so we can create a list of discrete betas. From there, we can likely come up with a timeline.
Sep 28 17:36:06 <mabe_> I can live with a deadline - but than we need a definition what has to be finished than
Sep 28 17:36:11 <weierophinney> rdohms, absolutely
Sep 28 17:36:22 <weierophinney> mabe_, that's the whole point of scoping betas.
Sep 28 17:36:35 <weierophinney> Here's what I outlined to ralphschindler and ezimuel yesterday:
Sep 28 17:36:53 <weierophinney> * ezimuel is finishing the cloud infrastructure component, and backporting to zf1
Sep 28 17:37:04 <weierophinney> * ralphschindler is finishing annotations support for Zend\Di, and then working on packaging
Sep 28 17:37:14 <PadraicB> mabe_, we're basically using the betas as a deliverable goals planned to a timeline (we'll document somewhere soon I presume)
Sep 28 17:37:28 <weierophinney> * I'm working on bringing the variosu auth components up-to-date with HTTP api, and then turning to MVC and server components.
Sep 28 17:37:37 <weierophinney> PadraicB, +1
Sep 28 17:37:48 <weierophinney> PadraicB, would you be willing to start a page in the wiki?
Sep 28 17:37:59 <rdohms> weierophinney: how's annotations coming into ZF? custom library?
Sep 28 17:38:11 <weierophinney> PadraicB, based on the ratified standard dist list?
Sep 28 17:38:11 <PadraicB> weierophinney, I can do...at the weekend. Seriously pressing time just to attend here
Sep 28 17:38:21 <weierophinney> PadraicB, understood. I'll take it on, then.
Sep 28 17:38:27 <weierophinney> rdohms, ask ralphschindler
Sep 28 17:38:31 <Bakura> Nothing to do with that, but is there a specific place ot submit bugs on ZF2 ? (I mean... not really a bug but YAML support for Zend\Application was forgotten)
Sep 28 17:38:37 <rdohms> ehehe guilhermeblanco just filled me in
Sep 28 17:38:41 <mimiron> is there a wiki page that tells testers what's usable now?
Sep 28 17:38:48 <intiilapa> Bakura: Jira > project zf2
Sep 28 17:38:49 <weierophinney> Bakura, the issue tracker allows you to select the ZF2 project now
Sep 28 17:38:52 <PadraicB> weierophinney, yes - standard dist would drive what we need to deliver.
Sep 28 17:38:54 <Bakura> Thanks .
Sep 28 17:39:25 <jurians> mimiron: I give a try to mark components @unstable when they are not ready yet
Sep 28 17:39:29 <weierophinney> PadraicB, cool, I'll get that going today or tmorrow morning, and we can then start pinging maintainers to come up with a timeline.
Sep 28 17:39:39 <weierophinney> jurians, AWESOME
Sep 28 17:39:58 <intiilapa> jurians: if you can send a list on ML too
Sep 28 17:40:19 <weierophinney> jurians, easy way to start: run each individual component, and determine if tests run. (with errors and/or failures is fine). If they don't mark unstable, and post to the list.
Sep 28 17:40:28 <PadraicB> weierophinney, as you can guess, expect a long ML reply list when you post that
Sep 28 17:40:29 <jurians> yup, will be this weekend i guess
Sep 28 17:40:41 <intiilapa> http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/Milestone+Testing
Sep 28 17:40:44 <weierophinney> PadraicB, yep, I'm counting on it.
Sep 28 17:40:49 <intiilapa> it's not up to date, but some tests
Sep 28 17:40:57 <EvanDotPro> so have we ran through all the meeting topics?
Sep 28 17:41:04 <jurians> weierophinney: got a minute after the meeting? question about phpunit
Sep 28 17:41:05 <weierophinney> oh, and in case some of you were not aware, intiilapa rocks, as he's been doing a ton to get tests running
Sep 28 17:41:11 <weierophinney> jurians, absolutely
Sep 28 17:41:18 <PadraicB> EvanDotPro, I believe we have for now. Open floor for the remaining 20 mins?
Sep 28 17:41:18 <intiilapa> but someone has broken form
Sep 28 17:41:26 <weierophinney> PadraicB, +1
Sep 28 17:41:27 <EvanDotPro> PadraicB: i was going to suggest just that.
Sep 28 17:41:59 <weierophinney> intiilapa, point me to the issues, and I'll see if I can address. May be related to what stu hebert is working on
Sep 28 17:42:03 <NickBelhomme> PadraicB, +1, you are free to go I guess
Sep 28 17:42:10 <EvanDotPro> i wanted to ask, regarding modules, if there's anything specific that we want to have for a beta release that's not already in place?
Sep 28 17:42:12 <intiilapa> jurians: a trick => cd tests && phpunit Zend/Application (you run only tests suite for this namespace)
Sep 28 17:42:22 <PadraicB> Alright, we have a rare Open Floor. Anyone with pressing ZF2 development related items to discuss? I'll hand over the meeting to NickBelhomme now .
Sep 28 17:42:25 <intiilapa> weierophinney: ok
Sep 28 17:42:33 <rdohms> jurians: if i can help with phpunit you can ping me as well
Sep 28 17:42:44 <jurians> intiilapa: got it from weierophinney yesterday, learning something new every day lol
Sep 28 17:42:48 <NickBelhomme> PadraicB, thx, enjoy your evening
Sep 28 17:43:44 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, one thing I'm thinking is that we should have a default "View" listener, like we had in the prototypes, in Zend\View, and then we can simply invoke it from the application module we ship in the skeleton. What do you think?
Sep 28 17:43:45 <PadraicB> Will do. I love my office. I can see the sunshine outside from the safety of my desk.
Sep 28 17:43:58 <weierophinney> PadraicB, thanks for moderating!
Sep 28 17:44:46 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, also, I was thinking the "skeleton" module should be a separate repo under the zendframework org on github. That way you can clone it or add as a submodule.
Sep 28 17:45:21 <intiilapa> skeleton is an "empty" recommanded structure?
Sep 28 17:45:32 <intiilapa> or hello world (ie acme bundle)?
Sep 28 17:46:03 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: would we want the "skeleton" to also be available via "zf create project helloworld"?
Sep 28 17:46:10 <intiilapa> weierophinney: do you have an idea of default listener provided by mvc module?
Sep 28 17:46:29 <weierophinney> intiilapa, hello world style
Sep 28 17:46:45 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, eventually that, but not for the beta time frame.
Sep 28 17:46:59 <intiilapa> beta time frame = ZendCon step?
Sep 28 17:46:59 <weierophinney> intiilapa, yes – it's in the zf-quickstart now.
Sep 28 17:47:04 <weierophinney> intiilapa, yes
Sep 28 17:47:09 <Akrabat> I defintely think that there should be a default view listener
Sep 28 17:47:18 <NickBelhomme> hi Akrabat
Sep 28 17:47:22 <Akrabat> evening all
Sep 28 17:47:35 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: also, i think the view listener is a good idea... it would be cool, it would also be nice if we could have POC of how another templating language might be able to plug in, or be made available via a module (perhaps not in the beta timeframe either though)
Sep 28 17:47:54 <mimiron> will zf2 tool have some sort of: Zf create project CRUD? I think that would help with adoption
Sep 28 17:48:12 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, I can maybe get that in place. I was considering adding an actual "View" class that composes renderers already.
Sep 28 17:48:17 <intiilapa> crud sounds like guestbook...
Sep 28 17:48:21 <weierophinney> mimiron, potentially, but later.
Sep 28 17:48:27 <mimiron> hi rob
Sep 28 17:49:12 <weierophinney> who's rob?
Sep 28 17:49:24 <Akrabat> me, I assume
Sep 28 17:49:30 <weierophinney> Oh, right.
Sep 28 17:49:39 <weierophinney> I always think of you as simply Akrabat
Sep 28 17:49:44 <Akrabat>
Sep 28 17:49:53 <mimiron> some sort of default project that implements crud. same as rob had as tutorial for zf1
Sep 28 17:49:55 <NickBelhomme> who's Akrabat ??
Sep 28 17:50:02 <hhatfield> Rob
Sep 28 17:50:09 <mimiron> akrabat is rob
Sep 28 17:50:11 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, having that layer would make it more clear that you could use an alternate renderer, and then we can code up one later, perhaps as a module.
Sep 28 17:50:15 <mimiron> darn
Sep 28 17:50:21 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: exactly
Sep 28 17:50:21 <NickBelhomme> mimiron, the guestbook has DB support
Sep 28 17:50:30 <mimiron> hard to type on phone
Sep 28 17:50:46 <weierophinney> yeah, saw you were using an android client when I did a /whois
Sep 28 17:51:19 <mimiron> let me see if I can get so
Sep 28 17:51:21 <EvanDotPro> mimiron: my user module also has the "cr" in "crud" as an example.
Sep 28 17:51:44 <NickBelhomme> Akrabat, you're ready for your zf2 workshop at nw?
Sep 28 17:51:52 <Akrabat> nope
Sep 28 17:51:55 <Akrabat> getting there
Sep 28 17:52:24 <Akrabat> have got AlbumController's DI working now though, thanks to Evan, Ralph and RobBasic
Sep 28 17:52:30 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, did you see the authentication/authorization stuff in my latest in my zf2sandbox?
Sep 28 17:52:35 <weierophinney> that was done as listeners.
Sep 28 17:52:43 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: i did, it made mine look over-engineered lol
Sep 28 17:52:45 <weierophinney> would work well with your User module, too.
Sep 28 17:52:56 <weierophinney> nah
Sep 28 17:53:03 <NickBelhomme> weierophinney, I didn't see that, and I did a pull 3 days ago
Sep 28 17:53:03 <weierophinney> I just didn't want a database.
Sep 28 17:53:08 <NickBelhomme> it was there already?
Sep 28 17:53:12 <weierophinney> NickBelhomme, it was night before last.
Sep 28 17:53:17 <NickBelhomme> aaah
Sep 28 17:53:39 <weierophinney> NickBelhomme, http://git.mwop.net/?a=shortlog&p=zf2sandbox&h=refs/heads/feature/zf2-mvc
Sep 28 17:54:10 <weierophinney> So, for everyone just coming in, we actually finished EARLY.
Sep 28 17:54:16 <weierophinney> I'll be posting the summary later today.
Sep 28 17:54:26 <intiilapa> lol, ok
Sep 28 17:54:48 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: for the skeleton app, would we want to have zf2 as a submodule to tie to the right commit like i do in my sandbox? it could avoid problems with people saying "the latest commits/beta broke my skeleton app"
Sep 28 17:55:00 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, could you start a thread on the ML asking for input on what to include in the skeleton module?
Sep 28 17:55:05 <EvanDotPro> but at the same time it could cause confusion with branching, etc.
Sep 28 17:55:08 <NickBelhomme> aaah weierophinney super nice, will play with that tonight
Sep 28 17:55:32 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, that might be a good idea. Or we could add as a subtree merge, which would allow us to update it periodically.
Sep 28 17:55:43 <weierophinney> NickBelhomme, I'm not sure it's "super nice", but it works.
Sep 28 17:55:47 <mimir|on> ok, switched to laptop, on train now
Sep 28 17:55:48 <Akrabat> did we agree to create Zend\Module and Zend\Mvc to the main repo yet?
Sep 28 17:56:08 <weierophinney> Akrabat, yes – mentioned that as one of my last points as to what would need to be done.
Sep 28 17:56:10 <NickBelhomme> Akrabat, yes on the roadmap topic
Sep 28 17:56:17 <Akrabat> good. tomorrow?
Sep 28 17:56:19 <Akrabat>
Sep 28 17:56:24 <weierophinney> Akrabat, EvanDotPro question: when do you think we could merge those to library?
Sep 28 17:56:28 <intiilapa> EvanDotPro: I want to grab the skeleton app as a module with package system of Ralph
Sep 28 17:56:43 <weierophinney> intiilapa, we should be able to do that, I think
Sep 28 17:56:47 <EvanDotPro> intiilapa: that's coming soon
Sep 28 17:56:53 <weierophinney> ralphschindler, can pyrus package via github?
Sep 28 17:57:04 <NickBelhomme> ralphschindler, the packaging system will also be presented at ZendCon?
Sep 28 17:57:04 <intiilapa> EvanDotPro: you are in secret :o
Sep 28 17:57:08 <EvanDotPro> intiilapa: also you should see how easy it is to make modules into phars. you can literally just tar it and it'll work.
Sep 28 17:57:11 <Akrabat> weierophinney: asap imo
Sep 28 17:57:22 <Akrabat> will simplify people testing and playing
Sep 28 17:57:27 <intiilapa> EvanDotPro: yes it's can be a great idea to use phar
Sep 28 17:57:28 <ralphschindler> yes
Sep 28 17:57:30 <ralphschindler> it can
Sep 28 17:57:38 <ralphschindler> channels are static files
Sep 28 17:57:40 <intiilapa> EvanDotPro: just a skeleton is to play with code ^^
Sep 28 17:57:52 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney: i think we could merge them into library any time, really.
Sep 28 17:58:18 <weierophinney> ralphschindler, actually, it's a bit different. I was meaning if the repo has a package.xml, or the tools pyrus needs, can it send that to the client?
Sep 28 17:58:35 <intiilapa> EvanDotPro: module dependencies is linked to package system as transport?
Sep 28 17:58:46 <EvanDotPro> intiilapa: no.
Sep 28 17:59:38 <mimir|on> are there some links to guestbook module that can be used as a CRUD example for zf2?
Sep 28 17:59:43 <Akrabat> I should have my album tutorial in ZF2 by this evening
Sep 28 17:59:51 <EvanDotPro> intiilapa: module dependencies are declared in the Module class and can be checked via the module manager... i imagine we'll also use the Module class to potentially generate a package.xml that would be used by pyrus.
Sep 28 17:59:52 <mimir|on> Akrabat: great
Sep 28 17:59:57 <weierophinney> mimir|on, http://github.com/weierophinney/zf-quickstart
Sep 28 18:00:03 <intiilapa> mimir|on: do you know the repo of guestbook module?
Sep 28 18:00:06 <mimir|on> weierophinney: thanks
Sep 28 18:00:07 <weierophinney> features/zf2-mvc branch
Sep 28 18:00:08 <intiilapa> too late XD
Sep 28 18:00:33 <intiilapa> EvanDotPro: at runtime or with a tool?
Sep 28 18:00:40 <EvanDotPro> with a tool of course
Sep 28 18:00:51 <ralphschindler> oh, yes it can do that too
Sep 28 18:00:58 <weierophinney> intiilapa, the package.xml creation would be done with a tool. It's simply another use case for the module manager.
Sep 28 18:01:03 <Akrabat> How's Zend\Db, ralphschindler ?
Sep 28 18:01:04 <weierophinney> ralphschindler, really? AWESOME
Sep 28 18:01:07 <intiilapa> or maybe a little web checker like a proposal of ZF1 inspired by nette framework
Sep 28 18:01:09 <ralphschindler> weierophinney: so what you do is create a vendors/ directory
Sep 28 18:01:16 <ralphschindler> and it will resolve the dependencies
Sep 28 18:01:34 <ralphschindler> (which are basically nothing but pyrus install commands, for all intents and purposes)
Sep 28 18:01:51 <weierophinney> Akrabat, I can answer that – it's in very, very early stages. What's on master is still ZF1, and works, but new architecture is solid, just not completely written for any single db vendor adapter.
Sep 28 18:01:53 <ralphschindler> weierophinney: https://github.com/pyrus/Pyrus_VendorCommands
Sep 28 18:02:15 <Akrabat> weierophinney: would really really like to see Zend\Mvc, Zend\Router and Zend\Mvc by end of Friday
Sep 28 18:02:17 <weierophinney> EvanDotPro, intiilapa are you following ralphschindler – there's your answer.
Sep 28 18:02:23 <weierophinney> Akrabat, can do.
Sep 28 18:02:37 <intiilapa> follow here?
Sep 28 18:02:47 <EvanDotPro> weierophinney, ralphschindler: i'm taking notes.
Sep 28 18:02:48 <weierophinney> Akrabat, likely will have some new features – convenience api and all – but we can merge before then no problem.
Sep 28 18:02:51 <Akrabat> ok- won't talk about Zend\Db much
Sep 28 18:02:58 <weierophinney> intiilapa, yes, in this channel right now -
Sep 28 18:03:11 <Akrabat> weierophinney: yes - we'll be having new features for weeks !
Sep 28 18:03:31 <weierophinney> Akrabat, the new architecture rocks, but needs its own milestone/beta so we can complete.
Sep 28 18:03:43 <Akrabat> most definitely
Sep 28 18:03:54 <weierophinney> cool
Sep 28 18:04:01 <DASPRiD> nobody told me
Sep 28 18:04:02 <weierophinney> So, officially, we've met our time limit now.
Sep 28 18:04:06 <weierophinney> Move to #zftalk.2?