Re: [jcms] Why create Joomla Framework? It's 2013: use an existing Framework

[Paul D. Bain]

On 3/14/2013 3:48 PM, Alex Crawford wrote:
> First of all, historically based opinions are probably going to tear
> this thread apart, so please try to be open minded, unbiased, and look
> at the big picture.

Alex,

Discussions on this topic probably DO NOT belong on this mailing list
(ML), but on another, related ML: Joomla-Dev-Platform. I cc'd this reply
to that ML.

Sincerely,
Paul Bain

>
> I really commend the objective of Joomla Framework, because it is time
> to focus on the future, instead of the past (backward compatibility), if
> Joomla wants to remain the best CMS for long.
> Please keep in mind, I love Joomla, the community, developers,
> extensions market, its mechanisms and approach in solving problems, and
> I really want to see it to succeed.
>
> If you follow PHP development much, it should be obvious I'm going to
> talk about Laravel:
> http://phpmaster.com/laravel-really-clean-and-classy/
> https://tutsplus.com/tutorial/why-laravel-is-taking-the-php-community-by-storm/
>
> Lately, if my site or application is very custom, I will use Laravel
> Framework instead of spending twice as long adhering to Joomla's
> sometimes awkward, and inconsistent principles for extending.
> I have no problem creating components, modules, plugins, etc, but if the
> same MVC "Hello World" takes me one thousands lines of boilerplate
> Joomla, against less than ten lines in Laravel, the choice is obvious.
>
> Now, after reading a few articles relating to the new Joomla Framework,
> the goal seems obvious (and exciting) to me: create a clean, modern
> foundation that Joomla CMS can one day use; a decoupled, agnostic,
> modular foundation using the latest PHP advancements, from which a
> future Joomla CMS can simply require using composer, preventing managing
> the same code in multiple places, have its requirements easily updated,
> and just be awesome all around.
>
>
> But one thing all developers really need to ask themselves right now, is
> does such a foundation already exist? If so, why reinvent the wheel? And
> most importantly, why are we really doing this?
>
> If the answer to that last question, is to provide a foundation for a
> future Joomla, then _the REAL goal here is a future Joomla_, and years
> of development could be avoided if we keep that real goal in mind.
>
>
> I was so excited when I looked at the codebase for the new Framework. It
> looked so similar to Laravel's approach, and rightly so. Its techniques
> are the future of PHP. But then I thought wait a second... and I hope
> you will to.
>
> By the way, I wish I could show you the code for getplatform.com, which
> is a CMS using Laravel, uses themes, installable extensions,
> permissions, a clean admin interface, etc. They just started charging a
> subscription for their repository, as they are transitioning into
> Platform v2, which uses Laravel 4. Also, Pyro CMS is slowly going to be
> transitioning into Laravel 4.
>
>
>
> Joomla does so much right. I hope they will look at the big picture
> here, and take everything that is Joomla, and everything it does and the
> way it behaves, and put it on a solid framework. The question is, why
> reinvent that framework?

[Amy Stephen]

I don't know, I kind of like Alex's points out there on the general list where everyone can see - he has some really good points.

A couple of quick responses to it from me:

1. How do we really know you are "Alex" and that you aren't Don Gilbert, Joomla Platform Maintainer, pretending to be "Alex."

/me sits waiting for proof

Don is a big Laravel fan.

2. Talk about change management issues - whoa, baby, would that be a huge chance to the CMS and all of those developers who would absolutely be starting over.

3. The Joomla Framework Project is moving into that world where you should be able to mix and match software from many projects, including Laravel, with Joomla. It'll take the work they are doing to get you there but those steps will help everyone - including those who have brought Joomla thus far to get there too.

4. Laravel is in large part Symfony. https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/master/composer.json Lot of good stuff in there.

5. There is a lot of useful code in the Joomla platform that will be much more usable when these guys are done separating it out. You wait and see -- many other apps will have joomla code in their composer files in the next couple of years.

On Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:58:20 PM UTC-5, Paul D. Bain wrote:

On 3/14/2013 3:48 PM, Alex Crawford wrote:
> First of all, historically based opinions are probably going to tear
> this thread apart, so please try to be open minded, unbiased, and look
> at the big picture.

Alex,

        Discussions on this topic probably DO NOT belong on this mailing list
(ML), but on another, related ML: Joomla-Dev-Platform. I cc'd this reply
to that ML.

Sincerely,
Paul Bain

>
> I really commend the objective of Joomla Framework, because it is time
> to focus on the future, instead of the past (backward compatibility), if
> Joomla wants to remain the best CMS for long.
> Please keep in mind, I love Joomla, the community, developers,
> extensions market, its mechanisms and approach in solving problems, and
> I really want to see it to succeed.

You are correct! =)

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 March 2013 05:58, Paul D. Bain <paul...@pobox.com> wrote:

On 3/14/2013 3:48 PM, Alex Crawford wrote:

First of all, historically based opinions are probably going to tear
this thread apart, so please try to be open minded, unbiased, and look
at the big picture.

Alex,

        Discussions on this topic probably DO NOT belong on this mailing list (ML), but on another, related ML: Joomla-Dev-Platform. I cc'd this reply to that ML.

The Joomla Framework is about writing code under the Joomla banner. It's not about, for example, taking Symfony and putting a Joomla SDK on top of it. It's about writing the base code we want to own. So in some respects, it's not really a discussion for this ML because the question implodes on itself - in other words, if we decide to use Symfony for the FW, I'd just shut all this down (the Framwork) go and join that project. Actually, I probably would use Laravel myself.

However, for the CMS, it is a valid question and only one the CMS core contributors and extension developers can answer. If they want to swap to Symfony or Laravel, go for it. There are advantages and disadvantages to that but it's your call to scratch that itch.  

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 March 2013 07:50, Alex Crawford <awc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew, don't let pride get the best of you. Is the real objective here to "write code under the Joomla banner", or is it to have the best, open-source, user friendly CMS ever?

Pride? Really? The context of my reply was on the Platform/Framework list. If you want to change the Framework, then what we call the Framework ceases to exist. It's an exercise in logic - nothing to do with pride. If I was prideful I would have said "how dare the Joomla CMS think for one moment that it can ditch the Framework" <-- notice, I did not say that :)  Please discuss any change you want for the CMS on the CMS list and you have my blessing if you want to change to use Symfony or Laravel (whether that's wise or not, well, you'll find out).

But can we please keep discussions on this list technical in nature. I can argue philosophy all day but we have few enough people lending a hand as it is and people's time is valuable. This list is for those interested in contributing to the Joomla Framework

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Alex Crawford]

My pride comment was not about changing the CMS to use another Framework apart from Joomla Framework. In fact, I'm not even suggesting that, and I realize that my suggestion was not clear. I am basically suggesting Joomla Framework include this dependency in it's composer.json:

"laravel/framework": "4.0.*"

Then, the developers should be able to waste as little time as possible getting right down into what makes Joomla Joomla, and developing classes and hooks and everything Joomla provides which makes it so popular to extend.

My pride comment was about you seemingly being opposed to the idea of using someone existing code: "The Joomla Framework is about writing code under the Joomla banner".

I guess it needs to be decided what the Joomla Framework "is about" because I thought it was to provide an excellent foundation that a future Joomla CMS could use.

[Donald Gilbert]

The Joomla Framework is about building a modern version of the Joomla Platform. As stated elsewhere, there are things that we do better than anyone else, and we don't want to lose that. Also, we don't want to create a COMPLETELY new framework to learn how to build. Building in Joomla with the new Framework is going to "feel right" for a lot of the existing devs out there. Whereas if we changed the CMS to be build on the Laravel Framework, I would argue why not just kill the CMS and move to getplatform.org?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! Platform Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-plat...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 March 2013 08:15, Alex Crawford <awc...@gmail.com> wrote:

My pride comment was about you seemingly being opposed to the idea of using someone existing code: "The Joomla Framework is about writing code under the Joomla banner".

Please refer to my previous discussions on this list about our Log and Cache packages.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie 

[Alex Crawford]

Eddie, in the cache discussion, I see it being suggested to use Doctrine cache, then I see you also have one. What I took from this thread was: "I think that a framework needs to have 80%+ of the basic packages most application frameworks have. (Cache, Database, Email, Log, Http, etc.)" and "For me its a matter of not reinventing the wheel."

So if you are open to considering the Doctrine cache, I assume you are open to looking at Laravel's illuminate/cache, which is also PSR compliant.

And Don, answering last sentence:
Because it isn't really open source, (not for free at least), because they aren't going to do things in the end the way Joomla does them, and because you have this awesome community of developers that can appropriately visualize the end result, and that is the most important part of being able to create something awesome here.

Don, I heard you were a Laravel fan, so I assume you have experience developing on it? You mentioned "Building in Joomla with the new Framework is going to "feel right" for a lot of the existing devs out there."

Well, I'm sorry, but there is nothing that "feels right" about developing for Joomla, after having experience with something like Laravel.

There is no reason that you can't implement all the concepts that Joomla captures so well, and gain some elegance and developer friendliness with a framework like Laravel.

[Amy Stephen]

On Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:50:16 PM UTC-5, Alex Crawford wrote:

It is really unfortunate to have this thread in two places, the discussion is going to be split. I agree with Amy, and we just try to keep it all in the general list: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/joomla-dev-cms/6IJv_v0VBck

Andrew, don't let pride get the best of you. Is the real objective here to "write code under the Joomla banner", or is it to have the best, open-source, user friendly CMS ever?

You misunderstood his point. Andrew wants to write framework code - that's his interest area. All he said to you is that if the project adopts another platform, that's fine, but his personal interest in writing that type of code won't change, he'll continue where he is able to do so.

Pride is a funny thing. It's about balance. You want to create some cohesion in a group setting since it's motivating to participate. Having code run under the Joomla banner is a source of pride, meaning an honor.

On the other side, pride can become a danger, an isolating factor. A year ago, I might have agreed the Joomla project had become too isolated. But, if you can't see how that's not true at all today, then, get a good nights sleep and look again tomorrow. Sometimes reorienting perspective takes a bit. These guys are opening Joomla up to a bigger PHP world. They are doing it with honor, knowing that this code will be useful to others (pride), they are doing it because they know there is benefit to the community to have this access (not isolationists.) 

Now, ask Don how many times I told him he was wasting his time. I don't say that anymore. Getting real tired of him proving me wrong.

Give it time. It's good to know there are J devs who have experienced a broader world. Your Joomla pride should motivate you to write magazine articles showing what Joomla devs need to learn with these new tools, and help with the code and the doc so it gets there more quickly. You have a perspective which will be helpful to them. Put your colors back on, once in awhile, and help. =)

As far as your cache comments - I don't think Andrew should be picking a cache solution. I think he should make sure that what Joomla has can used in a complaint way (and he is doing so) and he should make certain anything that is compliant can be used in the J world (and that's what they are working on.)

[Amy Stephen]

Compliant not complaint. Steven not Steve. And so forth. Do as I mean, not what I say. Etc.

It is, however, refreshing to have someone take a strong stand that the project isn't changing enough. You cannot imagine how ironic that is. Makes me smile.

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 March 2013 08:54, Alex Crawford <awc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eddie, in the cache discussion, I see it being suggested to use Doctrine cache, then I see you also have one.

Yes. The CMS has had it's own JCache for a long time and that's what was included in the Platform. It's a horrible beast and Louis Landry rewrote something much lighter and that's what we were working towards including until Florian asked the question about using another cache. Fair question - we looked at it because Cache is not something I feel we absolutely have to own.

 

What I took from this thread was: "I think that a framework needs to have 80%+ of the basic packages most application frameworks have. (Cache, Database, Email, Log, Http, etc.)" and "For me its a matter of not reinventing the wheel."

Absolutely, but as you look around, it's not a black and white question all the time.

 

So if you are open to considering the Doctrine cache, I assume you are open to looking at Laravel's illuminate/cache, which is also PSR compliant.

I'd be open to it but it isn't PSR compliant. We haven't actually voted to accept the standard yet so *nobody* is technically compliant and the draft changed again overnight anyway. Last commit to Laravel's cache was, let me check, at least 3 months ago and no, they are not even remotely close to what the draft interfaces are looking like. Whatever the case, I need a near-PSR compliant cache for work so I'm putting the hours in. If we end up dropping it from our Framework it's no skin off my nose. The important thing will be to make our Framework Psr\Cache compliant so you can use Laravel (when they actually do upgrade and become compliant), or Doctrine, or maybe even Joomla\Cache\Cache.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie 

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 March 2013 08:54, Alex Crawford <awc...@gmail.com> wrote:

So if you are open to considering the Doctrine cache, I assume you are open to looking at Laravel's illuminate/cache, which is also PSR compliant.

Actually, Laravel isn't even a voting member of the FIG (Doctrine is). You might want to suggest to them they should become involved. I'd be happy to sponsor a membership request for them.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Donald Gilbert]

By "feel right" I meant for existing Joomla dev's it's going to feel very similar to how they develop now. They aren't going to be blasted with learning a whole new framework, just learning a grown up framework that they are already using. Hope that clears the confusion.

[Michael Babker]

The Framework's primary goal isn't to support the CMS, but to be an
agnostic framework that all can use. The goal is to update the CMS to use
this newer code (and hopefully without requiring human sacrifice to
worried developers, those with a vested interest in the CMS won't let it
completely destroy the bond that exists in the development ecosystem),
which would improve Joomla for everyone, but we need to think bigger
picture now. The Framework aims to expand past supporting just a CMS.
I'm pretty sure I've seen Andrew refer to ways the Framework can be used
without the CMS elsewhere.

If you look at the code that's been included into the Framework repo,
you'll note that you can trace its history back quite a way. Much of this
code has existed for 2-3 years minimum in the CMS and/or Platform, and
structurally, not much has actually changed. The largest differences are
the introduction of a newer Cache package, the dropping of all previously
@deprecated code, dropping packages that were coupled to CMS-specific
development, and the introduction of namespacing. The Framework also
bumped its minimum PHP version up, allowing for some other PHP features to
be used.

As for my personal opinion on building on another Framework, if we really
did depend on Laravel, I'd say why bother maintaining our own code, or
implementing new features. We should just drop all of our code that we've
written and used for projects both personal and business for and bound
ourselves to another project's way of thinking. We've come too far to do
that. If you truly want to build with Laravel and use the best that
Joomla's Framework has to offer, going down this new road, you can do just
that.

[Alex Crawford]

Andrew, illuminate/cache (and the others) are PSR-0 and 1 compliant.

I will mention to them what you said about FIG.

Don, there is still plenty merit to this statement though:

"There is no reason that you can't implement all the concepts that Joomla captures so well, and gain some elegance and developer friendliness with a framework like Laravel."

Because, I am not sure "feeling right" relating to existing Joomla development is something to brag about... If all the same concepts are carried over, I don't think anyone's going to complain about better syntax and accessors and more human readable code.

[Alex Crawford]

Michael, if the goal is truly "to be an agnostic framework that all can use", does PHP really need another framework? That was the question asked over and over again when Laravel came out, but after experiencing the astounding results with Laravel, the answer has been a resounding yes.

"if we really
did depend on Laravel, I'd say why bother maintaining our own code"

Because Laravel in itself accomplishes squat. You've still got a LOT of stuff to do in creating Joomla. My idea behind this thread, was simply to point out "don't reinvent the wheel", and lets get right down to the real goal. Now if you want to simply build a PHP framework for fun, to compete with Laravel, Symfony, CI, and the rest, then OK.

But I think you will find in perspective, there's nothing cool about saving 2-3 year old code. Try to keep the bigger picture, the final goal, and competing with code of today over sticking to old code just because it was "Joomla".

"We've come too far to do that." Yes, you have come very very very far. No matter which route you take, the time and effort making Joomla what it is doesn't just go away. Your not "starting over" whichever decision you make.

[Amy Stephen]

Alex-

Can you - in 10 basic steps - explain what you want from Joomla?

I'm confused, to be honest. You talk about things Joomla does well, things that Joomla doesn't do well, the fact that you like Laravel, and the fact that Laravel doesn't do anything on it's own.

You also seem to understand that this packaging is using existing code, so it's not starting over, but earlier you said it doesn't make sense to start over.

I'm think we have a disconnect, probably something simple. So, let's say you are Michael or Andrew - you are on the PLT, you are setting direction -- so - starting where things are at right now.

Currently, the project has a monolithic environment where the CMS and Platform are one.

What are the 10 basic steps you would say are your roadmap for Joomla?

Or, are you suggesting everyone just moves to Laravel? (And, I don't believe you are saying that.)

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 March 2013 09:58, Alex Crawford <awc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew, illuminate/cache (and the others) are PSR-0 and 1 compliant.

I'm talking about what will become PSR-4 (hopefully). Laravel's isn't even close. Doctrine is better but when I looked the documentation and unit tests weren't staggeringly better than what we already had. It was a line-ball decision and so in that case I'll err on the side of our own project. The new Joomla\Cache\Cache package is ground up built around Psr\Cache (or what we think it will be) and so that is a feather in our cap. The next step will be to ensure the rest of our FW code that relies on caching is refactored to inject Psr\Cache objects so that you have the choice, in *your* application, what caching framework you use.

You can chose to agree or disagree with that call - I don't mind, but several angles have been considered. That a decision does not go your way does not mean the process of making the decisions has not been open to alternatives.

I'll just go back to the case of the Log package. In my view, it's probably just as easy to drop it from our FW because other people, like Monolog, do just as good a job. However, if there are people that want to actively support Joomla\Log\Log and make it PSR-3 compliant, I'm ok with that to. If not, we may end up dropping Joomla\Log\Log from V2 of the FW and putting in a "suggest" for Monolog for any package that integrates with a logger.  Simple!

As for the question of building our whole framework on top of another, and calling that the Joomla Framework, it's not going to happen, because that would not be "the Joomla Framework". That would be something else. It's not that I don't see that as an option we could take (getting back to your misguided "pride" comment), but if we did it, we'd need to call it something else. But this *is* the Joomla Framework (well Platform, whatever) mailing list so it's a place where we talk about building our own code because that's what we like to do. If you want to build a new framework on top of Laravel, because that's what you like to do, and pitch it to the CMS as "the thing" they should use to write the next generation of extensions, go for it, but you can't call it "the Joomla Framework" - the name is taken. That's all.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Alex Crawford]

Yes Amy, I think the biggest disconnect here is that in my mind I am oversimplifying the actual work involved. I simply read some articles about Joomla creating a new framework, the intentions for it, saw how it was implementing packages, and thought "Hey, this is great! This looks like Laravel!" After that, I wanted to let the developers know about Laravel, so that instead of reinventing the wheel, they might start creating and migrating Joomla packages faster.

I can't give you the ten step plan, because I admit I've oversimplified this. I can really only offer my abstract point of view: I love Joomla's approach and concept for everything, but after using Laravel for a couple years, I don't like the syntax, the overhead involved, the referencing of almost non-existent documentation, etc. When I create an application in Laravel, I always find myself aiming for a Joomla like results, when it comes to managing permissions, content management, etc. For instance, my company is rebuilding an internal "Partner's Portal", which after two months I was pretty far along in Joomla. I got fed up, and after a week I was equally that far in Laravel. I know you might not suggest me to use Joomla for very custom apps like this, but the reality is I am building reusable components that could be useful to other generic cases, and it would be awesome in my mind, if I was putting this effort into Joomla, where I could just distribute my efforts to others as extensions. I was almost finished with a pretty nifty CDN (Rackspace, S3, or any VPS) document management and front-end display component, when I moved to Laravel.

I'll admit at this point though, I've confused my own intentions here, as I realize the point Andrew makes is true, we don't need a Framework on a Framework.

So, I guess I one thing I am passively asking for, IS some thoughts on building a Joomla like CMS with Laravel. I've often thought of doing it myself, but realized I don't have the capacity.

I've asked GetPlatform to consider some of Joomla's concepts, but they are a small closed group of developers. I come to you, because in the end, Joomla CMS really is the picture I want painted, but different under the hood.

That and the Joomla developer community is an impressive force. I think Laravel would allow for very rapid development, and would solve all the problems the Joomla Framework is aiming to solve.

You mentioned Andrew enjoys framework code. As a programmer, I would imagine getting Laravel Framework to do everything Joomla Platform 12 currently does, would be a very exciting and rewarding experience. Access / Permission classes, FormFields, Views that are override-able, all the hooks, and all the necessary implementations that only Joomla developers really know how the CMS needs them to behave. Laravel framework would need a lot of "framework code" to get to that point, but a lot less than if you starting a framework from scratch, and would be a lot cleaner than if you are reusing old Joomla code. Call the end result whatever you want.

I would love to be that guy you described Amy, promoting the CMS, writing docs, magazine articles, tutorials, etc, but lately I find myself slipping further and further away from Joomla development.

The intentions Joomla Framework expresses is exactly what I think I need to be back on board, but I understand I am just one person, with some pretty abstract ramblings, and my needs may not summarize the needs of Joomla's larger portion of end users, so "getting me back on board" is really irrelevant to the big picture.

:)

[Andrew Eddie]

Alex, I have no problem with some of your ideas, but I think you are lobbying the wrong mailing list :)

If you have ideas about improving the current Framework packages, let's talk code. Otherwise, I think it best to leave these sorts of conversations to blogs and social networks.

Thanks.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Donald Gilbert]

It's really quite awesome to have someone share my goals and visions for what the CMS could be. This is really along the lines of what I was thinking, just with Joomla code instead.

[Alex Crawford]

Andrew, theoretically most of my ideas would have to come before improving Framework packages if you do start on top of Laravel Framework. If you don't start on Laravel Framework, I think a lot of the Illuminate (Laravel 4) packages are worth looking at. I was going to recommend starting with Routing, Database (eloquent) and Validation, but as I think about it, they are all so expressive and enjoyable to use.

Joomla's Form and FormFields (perhaps the concept, not the existing code) would be an awesome companion to Laravel's Validation class.

On the other hand if you do start on top of Laravel Framework, then I think you end up with the most expressive code, and take advantage of all of Laravel's boilerplate: (e.g: http://four.laravel.com/docs/routing).

I'm going to use the term "Joomla Foundation" here, to not confuse with the current Platform.

"require": {

"laravel/framework": "4.0.*",

"joomla/foundation": "*",

 

And joomla/foundation would contain Forms, FormFields, Github, etc.

The app/ folder would then contain a lot of the CMS logic, such as making Views override-able via public/templates/example/html, making Views in public/components/com_example actually register as views, etc.

I know that "etc" is a lot, but I *think* that approach would result in the least amount of code and time, AND the best results, to get to where Joomla Framework aims to be. BTW, thats going to take a lot of "Joomla" code :)

I know that approach may mean you lose a lot of straight ported (old) coded... In my experience as a developer, there are times when I re-factor, and there are times when I "start over" and borrow snips and concepts from my original attempt. I have never been disappointed with the latter choice, and I would NOT consider that "starting over" in a conventional sense.

Andrew, from my position, the best I could probably offer toward your request to talk code, is to probably just start toying with a simple CMS with Laravel 4, maybe a joomla/foundation repo importing some Joomla classes (private or disguised to not confuse anyone, I'm not trying to start controversy), and see if the direction even interests you at all... 

Thanks for your motivational comment Don, I am enthusiastic like you are Don about Joomla, but lately I've just been struggling to be hopeful about it.

[Don]

The Laravel influence on me is clear, but I also want you to know I don't necessarily support building on top of Laravel (even though I do like the framework). I envision the CMS becoming an "application sdk" somewhat like getplatform, only using the Framework as its base instead of L4. Competition breeds innovation, so I also envision us building something awesome that is a viable alternative framework to the dozens out there, and helping push PHP forward in It's thinking and adoption of new concepts. It's the "if JOOMLA can do it, certainly I can" mentality.   There's a lot of good code and experienced dev's in Joomla, that have a lot to offer. But even for all it's good, you have to admit, it's kind of laughed at in the "serious php dev" community, if its even noticed. I personally would like that to change. That's yet another facet of what pushes me to do this work. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 March 2013 15:21, Alex Crawford <awc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew, from my position, the best I could probably offer toward your request to talk code, is to probably just start toying with a simple CMS with Laravel 4, maybe a joomla/foundation repo importing some Joomla classes (private or disguised to not confuse anyone, I'm not trying to start controversy), and see if the direction even interests you at all... 

I dislike private discussions immensely so if you have problems with *our* Joomla code just throw a message on this list. If you have problems with Laravel code, please use their resources.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Alex Crawford]

Andrew, I did not mean that I would create a private discussion. I meant I would toy with code and post my efforts here. I meant I wouldn't go about creating a public Github repo called Joomla/Foundation and confusing people into thinking there is something else now, or associate this with Joomla's efforts in any way.

And Don, so Joomla Framework aims to create the next Laravel. It will be different, perhaps innovative, but I can't believe it will be "better" by most general standards, especially if its re-using a lot of old Joomla code.

Yes it is kind of laughed at, which is really kind of ironic, because I am sure those people have never actually attempted to properly develop for it. It's got a solid MVC extension system (although its pretty frustrating sometimes). What else has that? It's even funnier when they say they use the spaghetti mess Wordpress for OOTB solutions... that's how you know not to take them serious.

Maybe to put this all into perspective for me, are you estimating a time frame for Joomla Framework yet?

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 March 2013 16:03, Alex Crawford <awc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe to put this all into perspective for me, are you estimating a time frame for Joomla Framework yet?

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-framework/issues?milestone=1&sort=updated&state=open

It's ready when that list is completed.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie 

[Amy Stephen]

Alex - this is a very good suggestion. There has already been talk about the need to burn the router to the ground, and then to sprinkle toxins on the dirt so that nothing ever grows back with a  primary keys in the URL. For. Goodness. Sake.

There are a number of excellent options out there and honestly, no reason for Joomla to make one (unless someone decides that's their goal in life.) But the real point is, even if Joomla does offer one, ensuring other projects code can be used instead is a goal.

Alex - It's hard to see Joomla in this new light, but, I believe they share your goals of interoperability. It's going to take time to see this, but I've seen a decided shift and I agree that it's important.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Alex Crawford <awc...@gmail.com> wrote:

On the other hand if you do start on top of Laravel Framework, then I think you end up with the most expressive code, and take advantage of all of Laravel's boilerplate: (e.g: http://four.laravel.com/docs/routing).

I'm going to use the term "Joomla Foundation" here, to not confuse with the current Platform.

"require": {

"laravel/framework": "4.0.*",

"joomla/foundation": "*",

 

 

Thanks for your motivational comment Don, I am enthusiastic like you are Don about Joomla, but lately I've just been struggling to be hopeful about it.

Be careful. Don has a way of infusing hope. Trust me. ;-)