2.0 - seriously, whats taking so long?

[eluser]yelirekim[/eluser]
While not really as frustrated as the OP, I think he does have a point. I mean the EE team said back in February that EE 2.0 is in some kind of working format, they have been running betas, and presumably this would mean that most (if not all) issues with the underlying framework (CodeIgniter) would have been hammered out by now. I love CI, and use it pretty much exclusively for most of my projects, I've been waiting excitedly for a while now to see all of the upgrades and features that will be rolled out with CI as the base for EE. Anyways, I think there is at least a moderate level of frustration among some of us with the lack of updates or even just news about updates around here.

[eluser]richthegeek[/eluser]
xwero: feel free to dispute the minor points of my post, but you can't deny that either the announcement of 2.0 was extremely and inappropriately early, or they've been pissing about for nigh on 18 months.

But to counter your post anyway, I wasn't saying it hadn't been "updated" - but to say that minor bug-fixes and incremental advances constitute a full release would be like saying that XP Service Pack 3 is as big a step as the release of Windows 7.

I'm not attempting to be ungrateful - free software occurs when it wants to... but there are limits to patience in any man.

[eluser]xwero[/eluser]
You are right i read updated instead of upgraded. But do you really need to have a framework that gets upgrades every 6 months, every year? I think the more a framework upgrades the faster it gets bloated.

I didn't go for the other things in your post as i found my opinion in the responses of others, i picked out that sentence because it was unanswered.

Sure EE 2.0 was announced too soon but the people at EL know this too that is why there is an update on the EE blog every tuesday now. They have demoed the developer preview more than once and i don't think they are going to demo code which needs a lot of hacks to make it work.

Saying EE 2.0 and its CI version is vaporware is IMO not a very respectful conclusion.

[eluser]JasonS[/eluser]
The reason I use CI is because it is light weight and fast. When it needs updating the EE guys do update it with general fixes. Frameworks typically fall into one of 3 categories. They aren't updated often and die, they are updated infrequently but this is because updates are only required infrequently or they are updated all of the time in a knee jerk reaction to the community.

I use CI because it was born out of a commercial project, not many other frameworks can say the same thing. I really do not know what they could add in 2.0 that could improve CI. I can add new libraries myself and while I would like to see a fully featured orm class in CI, there are libraries that can do this anyway.

I think it is a testament to the CI build quality that this version is still going very strongly after all of this time. Not many other frameworks could age so gracefully in a world where new development techniques seem to crop up weekly.

[eluser]Crimp[/eluser]
Not sure what more the CI framework needs. Classes and modules that are more in line with application features should not really be part of a framework. Things like Auth are borderline.

[eluser]IvanBernat[/eluser]
As a CI newbie (and a CakePHP "expert") I find a lot of things missing/confusing.

E.g. why are the HTML helper and the URL helper separate? I think the (e.g.) site_url should go under the HTML helper (as it produces HTML?).

I also like Cakes way of dealing with forms, form_input for example in Cake would also add a label and a surrounding div. (I already forked the form helper to do this).

This are just two things I'd like to see in the next release :-)

[eluser]Thorpe Obazee[/eluser]
[quote author="IvanBernat" date="1246280792"]As a CI newbie (and a CakePHP "expert") I find a lot of things missing/confusing.

E.g. why are the HTML helper and the URL helper separate? I think the (e.g.) site_url should go under the HTML helper (as it produces HTML?).
[/quote]

huh?

[quote author="IvanBernat" date="1246280792"]
I also like Cakes way of dealing with forms, form_input for example in Cake would also add a label and a surrounding div. (I already forked the form helper to do this).

This are just two things I'd like to see in the next release :-)[/quote]

I honestly "hate" how Cake does that. (E.g. It depends on the person who uses it.)

[eluser]IvanBernat[/eluser]
[quote author="bargainph" date="1246281392"]I honestly "hate" how Cake does that. (E.g. It depends on the person who uses it.)[/quote]

Not trying to start a framework war here, just gave my opinion :-)

[eluser]Thorpe Obazee[/eluser]
[quote author="IvanBernat" date="1246281552"][quote author="bargainph" date="1246281392"]I honestly "hate" how Cake does that. (E.g. It depends on the person who uses it.)[/quote]

Not trying to start a framework war here, just gave my opinion :-)[/quote]

I just to state that it depends on the person who uses the framework. The form helper will lose some flexibility if you add the additional 'div'. (I'd prefer to modify it if I need the form helper to have additional divs.)

I'm a user of Cake too. Don't worry.

[eluser]IvanBernat[/eluser]
[quote author="bargainph" date="1246281749"]I'm a user of Cake too. Don't worry.[/quote]

Well nice to meet you, fellow Baker :-)