Oh, I beg your pardon, I thought we were having a polite discussion.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Larry Garfield <<a href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com">larry@garfieldtech.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:14:07 -0300, "Victor Kane" <<a href="mailto:victorkane@gmail.com">victorkane@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Quick English translation: Above and beyond classifying Drupal in one or<br>
> another design pattern in the strictest sense, we speak of MVC in relation<br>
> to Drupal because of its clean separation of data persistence and forms<br>
> (model), logic (http request and response, or Drupal page life-cycle) and<br>
> view (the HTML that is returned to the browser), and that there are many<br>
> API's and opportunities to override in a clean fashion.<br>
<br>
</div>Which is wrong. 3-part separation does not imply MVC. MVC is one specific 3-part separation that is poorly suited to the web. WebMVC/MVC2 is a stupidly named architecture more properly termed "Rails-style", since most of them are inspired by Ruby on Rails' misuse of the term "MVC". I personally happen to think it is a fairly bad architecture, too, but that's more subjective.<br>
<br>
See the previously posted link for more details, and please stop calling Drupal something it is not.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--Larry Garfield<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>