I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any framework that anybody would really care about is extensible and will support extensions in different locations. And +1 to the thing about adopting standards wherever feasible.<br clear="all">
-----<br>Cameron Eagans<br>Owner, Black Storms Studios, LLC<br><a href="http://www.blackstormsstudios.com">http://www.blackstormsstudios.com</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Daniel F. Kudwien <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:news@unleashedmind.com">news@unleashedmind.com</a>></span> 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="im">> "we'll be involved in developing such standards and will<br>
> adopt them wherever feasible, but we do not commit to<br>
> following all standards if they are incompatible with<br>
> Drupal's basic architecture."<br>
><br>
</div>> --Larry Garfield<br>
<br>
+1 Yes, that makes sense. I think it is what we (sometimes silently) did<br>
anyway. Some of our standards are self-made (for good reason), but there<br>
are also a couple that were directly derived from example code snippets on<br>
<a href="http://php.net" target="_blank">php.net</a>'s documentation pages. In some cases, when there was no consistent<br>
standard on <a href="http://php.net" target="_blank">php.net</a>, we even asked them for the proper standard and to fix<br>
their docs.<br>
<br>
I'm not quite sure how they can ignore an architecture like Drupal. I'm not<br>
sure whether I know of a PHP framework/CMS that is NOT extensible and<br>
doesn't support extensions to be placed in various locations, and therefore<br>
wouldn't support this strict filepath based namespacing.<br>
<br>
Thanks for staying involved, Crell!<br>
<br>
sun<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>