Aura and People

[harikt]

Hi ,
I have added Aura Project for Library, the second version of Solar PHP.
Also added some more people on another commit. 2 commits are added for it may help to take the needed one only .
Let me know if I need any changes.
Thanks

[philsturgeon]

Let's not start splitting component based frameworks from the others, as most f the full stack frameworks are or will be component based by their next release. We don't need a framework listed twice and if it is taken out of full stack it could look negative for the project.

[harikt]

@philsturgeon according to @fabpot's article http://fabien.potencier.org/article/49/what-is-symfony2 , he himself mentions "Symfony2 is a reusable set of standalone, decoupled, and cohesive PHP components that solve common web development problems." And for @auraphp you can see the goal "Libraries First, Framework Second" http://auraphp.github.com/ . You can also see the "Libraries and Frameworks" http://www.phptherightway.com/#libraries_and_frameworks , that means there are libraries and these libraries are helpful to build your own framework. ie why composer and packagist plays a huge role ( according to me ) .
Probably you are also right on listing two places the same project . Lets list at only one place but mention it can also act as framework , so that it is not a negative anyway or lets have a section libraries, framework , libraries and framework . About the removal of @solarphp . I will discuss with @pmjones and let him say the last wordings as I am not the final authority :) .

[philsturgeon]

Fine with Solar being removed, if the new project replaces the old one then no need for both.

The reason I am getting involved at all is because FuelPHP 2.0 will move FuelPHP from the Full-Stack Frameworks list to the Libraries list, but it will STILL be a full stack framework.

So...?

Also, if these projects in question have all of their components on Packagist then why aren't we just talking about Packagist? Why the need to highlight specific vendors of Packagist components over the other ones?

Is Aura\HTTP more important than Buzz or Guzzle? (random example)

[harikt]

@philsturgeon I am fine with removing Solar :) , as I told I am not the supreme commander .
Yes once you feel fuelphp as a library you can change from full stack to libraries and lets mentions in Acts as Libraries and Framework section . The other one just library , and frameworks.
There is nothing highlighting here. Let the users decide what they need :-) . I am not against any Vendors or Packages. I love beautiful codes which follows PSR .
Aura\Http is different from Buzz and Guzzle . You can create response https://github.com/auraphp/Aura.Http#http-responses and also it acts as https://github.com/auraphp/Aura.Http#http-requests . I am not sure whether we can create Response with Buzz . And Guzzle seems too heavy . Not sure whether its possible with it also . Anyway its not about Aura\Http :) .

[philsturgeon]

You've missed all of the points.

I know you aren't affiliated with Paul, I know you aren't suggesting what the users should and shouldn't use and I wasn't asking for a review of HTTP components.

The main point I was aiming at is this:

If Zend, Aura and Symfony are making PSR-0 components (as are Fuel, Laravel, Lithium, etc) why do we need to list them twice?

Second point (furthers the first) is this:

If Zend, Aura and Symfony are putting their PSR-0 components on Packagist, why don't we just point users at Packagist instead?

Frameworks are frameworks. Libraries are libraries. Some frameworks make libraries.

My recommendation is this:

Keep Packagist listed under libraries.

Keep frameworks listed as frameworks.

[harikt]

@philsturgeon :) ok I don't disagree .

[harikt]

One thing is every packages may not be in packagist , for eg zend . It lies in their repo now ( According to my knowledge its downloaded from the zip there ) .

[philsturgeon]

In which case we'd list this:

http://packages.zendframework.com/

And we would list this:

http://pear2.php.net/

Phil Sturgeon

On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 16:30, Hari K T wrote:

One thing is every packages may not be in packagist , for eg zend . It lies in their repo now ( According to my knowledge its downloaded from the zip there ) .

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#86 (comment)

[philsturgeon]

You've raised some valid points which we'll take care of over at #104. Thanks! :)

[harikt]

Thank you :-)