[Vtigercrm-developers] vt6 versus zf2

[Prasad]

Team,

Thank you for participations on this thread,  I hope you did look at the
wiki documentation that was targeted to capture the changes made:

   - https://wiki.vtiger.com/index.php/Vtiger_6_Developer_Guide
   - https://wiki.vtiger.com/index.php/Vtiger_6_Language_Translation

As said, the code in SVN is under-development, our focus is primarily to
get the Vtiger6 functionality
 working (both module + settings) without disturbing the Vtiger5 runtime.

Vtiger6 module folder structure should be much simpler than what is Vtiger5.
We would be looking at refactoring and remove files which aren't required
anymore.

I hope this cleared the confusions?

Regards,
Prasad

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Joe Bordes <joe at tsolucio.com> wrote:

>  It isn't a price to pay for forking, even if you have been playing by
> the (scarce) rules it is still a nightmare. I think the biggest problem is
> the lack of transparency and knowledge. We have no idea what vtiger is
> doing, we have no participation in the changes being made, we don't even
> see them coming, all of a sudden you have months worth of work to
> understand a whole new set of rules and code base with no real clues as to
> where to start or continue. You might just as well start with any other
> code base from scratch. That said, we have nothing to reproach, we are here
> because we want to, if you don't like it, change it. I'm sure you'll see
> that it isn't easy at all.
>
> While we decide and try to keep pace, it does feel good to vent off a
> little once in a while  :-)
>
> Joe
> TSolucio
>
>
> On 19/02/13 22:28, Richard Hills wrote:
>
> 1 - Unfortunately we're in the same boat. I am hoping that at least some
> vtlib module migrations will be straight forward, however have ignored this
> completely so far as I await a rc.
> 2 - This is the price we pay for forking the base of the system right?
>
> On 20/02/13 10:14, Adam Heinz wrote:
>
> I don't know about anybody else, but in order to migrate to vt6, I'm
> looking at:
> 1. rewrite sixteen custom modules
> 2. reimplement all vt5 patches for vt6
>
>  Without any sort of adapter to provide backwards compatibility, I am
> forced to do all this work at once, instead of being able to spread it out
> over time as I respond to our normal queue of bugs and feature requests.
>  As far as one might "prefer one hard redesign, without compatibility," I
> think that's only true when you have a deprecation period to make the
> transition.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Stefan Warnat <ich at stefanwarnat.de>wrote:
>
>>  I don't have look at details of the vtiger6 structure vtiger6 and I
>> think it isn't a perfect system,
>> but I think anything inside the modules directory will be deleted on
>> release date and later modules will be only in vtiger6 directory.
>>
>> My experience is, that files from "modules" Directory won't be used
>> inside new vtiger6 theme.
>>
>> But probably it's true, most/all vtiger developer prefer one hard
>> redesign, without compatibility, before lots of little changes, which needs
>> lots of tests/work with every version.
>>
>> Freelancer at Webdevelopment
>>
>> *Web*: http://www.stefanwarnat.de
>> *Xing*: https://www.xing.com/profile/Stefan_Warnat2
>> *eMail*: ich at stefanwarnat.de
>> *
>> Telefon*: 0162 / 2548568
>> (Werktags 12 - 18 Uhr)
>>
>> Am 19.02.2013 16:36, schrieb Adam Heinz:
>>
>>  "Keep the vtiger6 code operational?"  How about keeping the vtiger5
>> code operational?!  You forked your own modules to create the vtiger6
>> subfolder.  I have no idea how I'm supposed to merge a branch that contains
>> a partial copy of itself, much less attempt to preserve any sort of
>> merge/edit history.  This is the largest bowl of copy pasta I've ever
>> encountered in fifteen years of professional development.  It shows a grave
>> lack of restraint and/or understanding of how to refactor a system while
>> keeping it operational.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Prasad <prasad at vtiger.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>>  We did have a look at several frameworks and evolved a simple one that
>>> can give us better control to keep the vtiger6 code operational with 5.x
>>> while
>>> our dev-team is on making progress.
>>>
>>>  Please do share your feedback if you find anything essentially lacking
>>> in vtiger6 framework.
>>>
>>>  Regards,
>>> Prasad
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Adam Heinz <amh at metricwise.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I'm poking around in vgcal right now and am extremely glad to see how
>>>> much Zend code it uses.  Did you guys consider using ZendFramework 2 MVC
>>>> instead of rolling your own for vtiger6?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.vtiger.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.vtigercrm.com/pipermail/vtigercrm-developers/attachments/20130220/4d4afc47/attachment.html