On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:20:19 +0100, Sebastian Riedel wrote
> Simon Cozens:
> > Perrin Harkins:
> > > Incidentally, as the youngest kid on the block, it might be a good idea
> > > for Maypole to check out what some of the more mature MVC frameworks for
> > > Perl have done about things like abstraction and declarative
> > > programming.
> >
> > I don't mean to sound head-in-the-sand, but this is a mistake; if you do this,
> > then you become very tempted to go mad and redesign your framework to steal
> > what you think are the cool features of everyone else's frameworks. Not
> > necessarily for any technical merit, either, just to keep up with the
> > neighbours.
> >
> > I'm bitterly disappointed about the way Maypole is going, but that's life - it
> > isn't mine any more.
> >
>
> Hey, i'm not developing Maypole any further, the rewrite is now a
> subproject named "Catalyst"...Maypole will stay like it is...(you decide
> if thats good or bad...)
I think this is a shame. It seems to me that there have been a lot of
developments and backwardly incompatible changes in the last month or so. And
so soon after the 2.0 release there's already talk of more widespread changes
to the framework. How is anyone to take Maypole seriously and invest in time
learning and developing with it when it's in such flux?
I'd love to see Maypole settle down. Maypole needs to be more defined. What
are its goals and aims? What is outside the scope of Maypole? I'd like to see
better documentation and unit tests. I'd like to see growing user confidence
in Maypole. IMO, it's time to think about whether we need a Maypole 3 and what
should be in it *only* after all these things are resolved.
Is anyone willing to take over maintainership if Maypole is abandoned? FWIW,
I'll throw my hat into the ring.
--simonflk
_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:56 GMT