Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

<h3>NOTE: The meeting has been moved from 17:00 UTC to 18:00 UTC due to community demand (DST).</h3>

<p>This IRC Meeting is planned for 18:00 UTC on Wednesday, 1 February 2012.</p>

<ac:macro ac:name="html"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[<iframe src="http://free.timeanddate.com/countdown/i2vpvyb9/cf12/cm0/cu4/ct0/cs0/ca0/cr0/ss0/cac000/cpc000/pcfff/tcfff/fs100/szw320/szh135/tatTime%20left%20to%20Event%20in/tac000/tptTime%20since%20Event%20started%20in/tpc000/mac000/mpc000/iso2012-02-01T18:00:00" frameborder="0" width="350" height="64"></iframe>]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:macro>

<h2>Weekly meetings?</h2>

<p>During <ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="2012-01-25 Meeting Log" /><ac:link-body>last week's meeting</ac:link-body></ac:link>, attendees discussed having weekly IRC meetings for the foreseeable future. Matthew would like a vote on this.</p>

<ac:macro ac:name="unmigrated-inline-wiki-markup"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[

Should we vote on having weekly meetings? (Log In to vote.)
Choices Your Vote

Yes

No

]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:macro>

<h2>Zend\View Proposal By <ac:link><ri:user ri:username="matthew" /></ac:link></h2>

<p>The <ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="RFC - View Layer" /><ac:link-body>View RFC</ac:link-body></ac:link> has been up for a few weeks. While a few issues are still being worked out, a number of folks have had a chance now to play with it and examine the architecture. Matthew would like a vote on the RFC during this meeting.</p>

<ac:macro ac:name="unmigrated-inline-wiki-markup"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[

Should we vote on the View Layer RFC? (Log In to vote.)
Choices Your Vote

Yes

No

]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:macro>

<h2>Discussion of Coding Standard Ballot Items By <ac:link><ri:user ri:username="ralph" /></ac:link></h2>

<p>While previously discussed and approved in last weeks meeting, Ralph would like to discuss the completeness of the poll located at <ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="POLL - Coding Standards for Type Names" /></ac:link></p>

<ac:macro ac:name="unmigrated-inline-wiki-markup"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[

Should discuss and vote on approving this poll's content? (Log In to vote.)
Choices Your Vote

Yes

No

]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:macro>

<h2>PHP 5.4?</h2>

<p>With PHP 5.4 on the verge of a stable release, the question arises: should ZF2 target PHP 5.4?</p>

<p>Pros:</p>
<ul>
<li>We could reduce total amount of code, and thus make maintenance easier, using traits <strong>within</strong> the framework (instead of simply offering them for optional consumption).</li>
<li>Baseline performance would improve due to the performance improvements made to PHP 5.4.</li>
<li>ZF2's adoption of PHP 5.4 could help with that version's adoption in distributions and ISPs. (Though this is definitely up for debate.)</li>
</ul>

<p>Cons:</p>
<ul>
<li>Many developers are already targeting 5.3 since that is the version we've announced publicly for some time, and upping the version could change or upset migration plans already in place.</li>
<li>PHP 5.3 adoption is still low, and 5.3 adoption is more likely in upcoming LTS distributions than 5.4.</li>
<li>We cannot predict how quickly ISPs/hosting providers will offer 5.4 (and 5.3 adoption in ISPs has been slow).</li>
</ul>

<p>One thing brought up is that we can offer some 5.4-specific features without actually building on them internally. As an example, we already have a "ProvidesEvents" trait available, which you can consume if you are on PHP 5.4, but which the framework code itself does not consume in order to stay 5.3-compatible.</p>

<p><strong>The intention is not to make a decision at this point, but to gather feedback and discuss.</strong></p>

<ac:macro ac:name="unmigrated-inline-wiki-markup"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[

Should we discuss using PHP 5.4? (Log In to vote.)
Choices Your Vote

Yes

No

]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:macro>

Labels:
None
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.