[pLog-svn] Announcing SoylentX.com powered by a souped up Plog

[Oscar Renalias]

Come on, nothing more about the idea of the framework...? Now that you
got me started, it would be good to make the best of the momentum of
the situation :))))

Oscar

On 6/22/05, Oscar Renalias <phunkphorce at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/05, Allan Sun <sunajia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > THE BIGGEST PROBLEM with customizing Plog is one that every OS project
> > > faces. I as the user/developer want to hack the core so I can make Plog
> > > do exactly what I want it to. BUT I also want to take advantage of
> > > developments and new versions. How do I do this? (That's rhetorical, but
> > > if you have any really good suggestions....)
> >
> >
> > I've been using the Plog framework to develop my own product for a long
> > while, I got the same problem with upgrading the existing code with newer
> > version of Plog core. I think it's  because the programme architecture is
> > not cleared enough.
> 
> I know, I know, but that's why the code is open... your help is always
> appreciated :) If you find an class, method or pattern that could be
> improved, get rid of or be added to the API, please let us know.
> 
> > I do realise it's because of the performance, we have to put more
> > Plog-dedicated methods/ properties into a very generic class, e.g. Model/
> > Template / View and even Action, the result is when I try to use the Plog
> > framework to do my own project ( which is not blog related at all), I have
> > to spend several hours on splitting the core from the Plog programmes and
> > delete lots of the Plog only methods, and maybe change some methods to make
> > more generic ( e.g the View, it's using BlogInfo, which is to special).
> 
> I've just had a quick look at the most basic classes of our framework
> because I had forgotten how they looked like :))) I noticed that
> Action, View, Model and Controller do not have any dependency on
> BlogInfo, UserInfo or anything like that. Perhaps you meant to say
> that BlogView or BlogAction have a dependency on them? In that case,
> you'd of course be right...
> 
> In a more general way, there are still lots of classes that do not
> depend or are related to blogs: FormValidator, all the Validator
> classes, all the Config* classes, and even Model. Those could be
> easily reused in any other project if necessary.
> 
> > I've talked this is Oscar, and he said Plog is only a blog software, and the
> > Plog team is not aiming to provide a general framework, which I think he's
> > pretty right, so what I'm doing now is for each new project I split the core
> > from latest Plog again and again. :P
> >
> > But I still wander that one day the architecture of Plog can go very clear
> > and we can easily use the Plog framework to do the re-development.
> 
> On this topic, I never said that I'm not 100% interested... :) In
> fact, I'd love to see this happen.
> 
> My only concern is how much "re-development" will mean for us but if
> you feel like it, I can even appoint you chief architect of the plog
> core (so that I can concentrate on the "plog" aspect of plog :)) so
> that you can get working on it. It's just a matter of getting the ball
> rolling... At this point the release schedule for 1.1 has slipped to
> probably late autumn, so this still gives us plenty of time to play
> with things.
> 
> We can discuss what belongs to the core/framework and what belongs to
> the application itself, and then start moving things around to
> probably different folders, etc. This would also allow us to keep
> separate releases for both the framework and plog itself, and even be
> maintained by completely different persons if necessary.
> 
> If anybody is interested, I declare this discussion open :)
> 
> Oscar
>