Talk:List of web application frameworks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ASP.NET

doesn't asp.net belong on this list? protohiro

I don't think so. ASP.NET is more of a platform and not a framework: the distinction being that of coverage and, possibly, philosophy. Chiology

Vkleo - Application frameworks could be for PCs, Macs, web, etc. (It is best to keep "web application frameworks" seperate from "application frameworks" because once someone decides to target the web there is really no need to look for it to support PCs or Macs.) Content management frameworks are a specialized type of application frameworks, but content management has been further developed to support content management. Few software programs are suited for both "web application frameworks" and "content management frameworks", as can be seen by the lists being so different. I suspect that some entries that are in both would really work well in only one of these two categories. It is cleanest to keep the entries seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.208.145 (talk)

[edit] Merge with Content management framework

The front page suggests a list of frameworks be merged with CMS. I would disagree. A CMS is at very minimum a system that lets end-users add content w/o programming. A framework tackles larger problems, usually aiming for complex databases, frequently aimed at business apps like accounting, eCommerce, and so forth. They are not the same. Kendowns 15:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed, CMS are like Madlibs, application frameworks are more like dictionaries, both use text, both use words, both are completely unlike the other. 68.124.106.90 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that the merge tag is for merging with content management frameworks, not content management systems (CMS). The article is merely a list, despite not having the usual "list of" prefix. As far as I can see, a content management framework is just a type of web application frameworks, and the current list has significant overlap with that article.
The list of content management systems is separate and I am not thinking of merging that. -- intgr 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the merge also. IMO WAFs have a broader definition than CMFs. AxiomShell 12:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree as well, the ideea of such a merge is absurd. alexaandru 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone formulate the difference between a "web application framework" and "content management framework", or come up with a clear definition for the latter? The initial disagreement was simply misled and nobody else has said anything constructive. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- intgr 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A merge of these two lists would be a large error. A "content management framework" is really no more than a CMS API and I would sooner debate the validity of this term than suggest a merge with "web application framework". A "web application framework", is a framework for building web-based applications. This is usually a set core files that help to keep you more productive and your code better organized. Other than that these files should have no reference to content management. Having said that, one could program a "content management framework" without even using a "web application framework". --Gavinmclelland 10:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could a "content management framework" not be defined as an ECM system with RM and ILM without looking into the technology used? Metazargo 11:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, mainly because nearly every fine CMS has an API and is therefore a "content management framework". So the list "content management framework" should be splitted into real web application frameworks (which could be merged into WAF) and CMS with a mature API (which could be highlited in CMS). As Gavinmclelland said, it will end in the definition of the terms. Metazargo 11:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think these should be merged, either. Are we done voting, yet? -- Mikeblas 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There never was a poll to begin with — as far as I can see, the issue is still unresolved, as the list criterias are not defined. -- intgr 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I took off the merge suggestion; I don't know how that's supposed to work, but I don't think anyone who's conversant with the issue could support a merge Mateo LeFou 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up fo PHP frameworks

The list of PHP frameworks here is too long, and contains a bunch of out of date/unused/unimportant/unmaintained sites. In the new content I've added I've tried to stick to web frameworks that are either reasonably complete and used, or interesting for conceptual reasons. Would it be ok to delete most of the PHP ones listed?

Actually, I'm going to go ahead and delete them, and if anyone feels I've gone too far we can merge back.


  • Lakish - I am going to add them back in. You ommitted Zend's Framework, so that shows that you didn't do any qualitative research into which ones are 'used', etc. I agree that the list is long, but this is an informative page. We shouldn't qualify what frameworks deserve listing, etc. Besides, you can already see that some new ones have already made it to your condensed list.
  • eshear - I agree, in retrospect, but I'd like to do something to separate the frameworks currently under active development from the ones which are older. Both are important for different reasons.
  • I am the (sole) developer of the Canvas Framework, which, as of yet, has seen little outside community efforts. I hope that this changes, and I develop on anyway. Just because a framework does not have an active community (present and future tense) doesn't mean that it should be removed. This is a list of PHP frameworks, and all of these really are PHP frameworks. I like the idea of organizing in active development verses stale. I would hate to be glossed over (or especially removed) because my framework is small. I think I've got something worth everyone's while, and I'll be damned if I can't be on this list because someone doesn't regard my framework due to its lack of developers. (It is used full-time in my department for web application development, so it sees active use, just not publicly.) - Chiology
Same thing here. I'm not even sure whether I should try to add my framework to the list. I mean, if it's all about promoting the stuff everyone (in the field) already knows about, than why have the list of framework altogether? The idea that to get coverage you need to be already covered is bothersome. Personally, I believe that notability is an intrinsic quality, not dependent on the amount of publicity something gets. - Roman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.254.21.226 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than Chiology's recent comments, this page hasn't seen much change since July. I would like to move the format to a table rather than a bullet list so we can add more info like creation date, version, author, even size of use, or some specifics that might be useful like class based, event driven, etc. Bytebear 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Drupal is in the Web application framework category but not in the PHP table. Odd omission. --jwalling 07:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article for every framework?

This article seems to suggest that every framework should have its own article, for example, consider the number of red links, and this seems to be counter to the notability policy. Indeed, this discussion was prompted by the notability tag applied to the Seagull Framework’s article.
You may wish to refer to earlier discussion here and here.
I’m just trying to canvas opinion here:

  • Does the notability policy apply here, in which case we might consider removing the red links and reviewing existing articles for notability; or
  • Should every framework, regardless of its current status, have an article, in which case, should we be submitting a change to the notability policy, or at least the software part? V. berus 21:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that we're not going to have a chance at changing the notability policy (over time, I have grown pretty fond of it). Lists of potentially non-notable things, with numerous red-links, are pretty common on Wikipedia, at least when it comes to software and web sites. Here's a few solutions that I can think of:
  1. Mark all current and newly-added redlinks with {{notablewarn}} which will look like redlink[verify notability]
  2. Always unlink redlink entries; allow redlinks only when an editor demonstrates notability (in talk, edit summary, etc).
  3. Remove obscure entries from the list altogether, which obviously begs the question "where to draw the line". One possible criteria could be entries lacking their own web sites.
-- intgr 09:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I’m not advocating a change to the notability policy, just observing that if the consensus of this discussion is that every framework should have an article, then the policy must be, gulp, wrong… I also note that the software part is proposed and so not, yet, policy, so we may have some influence there.
Your point 1 seems very reasonable, and I would support it after allowing some time for discussion here. I’m not sure I understand the subtlety of point 2, if we de-link (does that override point 1?), I’m not sure that someone would go to the trouble of reinstating a redlink, unless they had an article to write, so making it a real link.
A further criteria for point 3 might be articles that cite no sources other than the official website? V. berus 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"if the consensus of this discussion is that every framework should have an article"
I hinted that "I have [personally] grown pretty fond of the notability policy", so I don't think non-notable web frameworks deserve their articles. And I highly doubt that the software notability policy, whatever it will be, will be lax enough to allow most of the web frameworks listed on this article. What do you think?
"if we de-link (does that override point 1?)"
Yes, that's what I was thinking at the moment.
"I’m not sure that someone would go to the trouble of reinstating a redlink"
Well, clearly notable frameworks without articles certainly warrant redlinks, but that's tangential to our discussion.
"further criteria for point 3 might be articles that cite no sources other than the official website"
I was thinking of entries without articles, eligible for even being on the list. Existing articles are already covered by the notability policy.
-- intgr 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"What do you think?" I tend to agree with you, but wasn't going to prejudge a discussion here - I was just trying to point out the implications of every framework having an article, i.e. we'd need some pretty good reasons to counter policy.
"I was thinking of entries without articles" Sorry, misread your point 3, which is clear now. -- V. berus 20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(unident) If you have been following this article, you know I recently went through and cleaned out all of the entries without an article and without a useful link. I'm good with the consensus emerging above, but in general I like the idea trimming list articles down to entries that have articles. The two most significant advantages of that approach are that the notability decision is made over at the article itself and it makes it much more difficult for linkspammers to promote their product by inserting links. With respect to this article, I would like to see the "Links" column dropped: entries with an article don't need an external link and others can be given reference-style links immediately after their name in the first column. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with removing all redlinks altogether; I'm going to do that for now. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert with a reasonable rationale. -- intgr 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I also removed the tables while at it, since I found them to be mostly (1) inconsistent; (2) unnecessary (version numbers, etc); (3) made the article seem cluttered. They'd be okay on a "comparison of web application frameworks" article, but not a simple "list". -- intgr 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks much cleaner this way. I think it is a good idea to stick with article-only entries. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo UI

Doesn't the Yahoo UI belong under "Generic," next to Dojo? They are both Javascript libraries. Tomstrummer 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger with List of JavaScript libraries

Please see the talk page on that article for the discussion. Ian Bailey 17:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Purge...

I see there's been another purge today, in which frameworks that don't have an article were removed. In one stroke, the work of a dozen or so contributors was unilaterally removed.

Why must this be so?

This article purports to be a "List of web application frameworks", yet it has basically become merely a "List of Wikipedia Articles about application frameworks".

Is there a policy that all "List" articles must only contain items that have articles of their own? WP:Lists allows for redlinks to articles that might someday exist; and also allows for articles about more obscure topics that will never have an article.

As it stands now, this page isn't useful as anything other than a directory of Wikipedia articles. To someone seeking information about what frameworks are available, with a goal of possibly choosing one to use for a project, the page is worse than useless; it's misleading, as it gives an incorrect idea that there are only a handful of frameworks in existence.

I believe we should try to make this page a comprehensive and useful resource, including every framework that is either widely used, or is a current, active, viable project.

(Full disclosure: I am the author of an obscure, recently-delisted framework.) MattHucke(t) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion, we had two people speak in favour of removing redlinks/external links; but the majority of editors of this page - anonymous and otherwise - seem to think the opposite. Perhaps a poll? MattHucke(t) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)