> I think the simple reality is that if the CMS ever feels that the
> platform has diverged too far from what it can support, it can fork
> the platform back into itself. In a sense this is the case already
> that the CMS and platform get out of sync and then they get themselves
> back in sync with each other. This will happen on an on going basis.

> The simple reality is that the reverse is in fact more true. The CMS
> needs the platform but the platform project could live happily on it's
> own without the CMS. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't all be having
> this issue about problems with entirely CMS related code on the
> platform list and platform pull requests.

> Cheers,

> Sam Moffatt
> http://pasamio.id.au

> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:11 AM, bill richardson
> <wr.richard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > To get back to the code -- First let me say that i think the new code for
> > MVC looks great, and look
> > forward to working with it.
> > The main issue raised as far as i can see is the naming of classes ( i
> agree
> > with some of the concerns about using the same name
> > that the cms already using --- an interface should have interface in its
> > class name imho ).
> > As for Hannes comments and sam`s reply --- yes there have been millions
> of
> > downloads of Joomla --- THE CMS --- and frankly to hear
> > some of the main contributers to the platform saying that they do not
> care
> > if the cms adopts the platform code or not is a concern.
> > The cms is the main application that uses the platform, and should be the
> > top consideration when any code changes proposed.
> > Joomla as a CMS could survive ( even using another platform/ framework as
> > Drupal is proposing ) , but the Joomla platform NEEDS the cms ,
> > a fact that i fear some may have forgotten.

> > Regards
> > Bill Richardson

> > On Friday, 6 April 2012 23:34:39 UTC+1, Andrew Eddie wrote:

> >> Just wanting to draw everyone's attention to this important pull
> request:

> >> https://github.com/joomla/joomla-platform/pull/1120

> >> The key features are that JModel, JView and JController are now
> >> interfaces.  This would normally cause a backward compatibility
> >> problem but the existing MVC classes have been moved to the /legacy/
> >> tree, so the CMS will still use the old classes for the next two years
> >> (at least).  New platform applications can, however, take advantage of
> >> the new packages which are much cleaner and lighter.

> >> If you have any questions about this pull, don't hesitate to ask.

> >> Regards,
> >> Andrew Eddie