Template talk:Web frameworks
wat about split java framework to java and jsp frameworks and include jsf frameworks to jsp?
- see the way that Template:Widget toolkits works, you can make a group-within-a-group to as many levels as you like and it works extremely well. Lkcl (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Time to split it?
This template list has become a kitchen-sink. I think it should be split in:
- disagree. see Template:Widget toolkits for an extremely good, extremely comprehensive, well-laid-out, well-thought-out, readable and above all _useful_ template which has far more on it than this one does. Lkcl (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Widget toolkits
- disagree. that's already covered, by Template:Widget toolkits. Lkcl (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Web-app frameworks
- CMS (perhaps)
- nothing. this template serves its purpose, and serves its purpose well. what it doesn't have is a good layout (certainly not as good as Template:Widget toolkits. Lkcl (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Expansion, Merging, Splitting...etc.
My thoughts are we should move each of the programming languages to each individual template accordingly.
- no. you will likely find that templates for such already exist. people add things to categories for a reason. they add things to multiple categories for a reason. see Template:Widget templates for an example of how to properly lay out a template that has a very large number of sub-categories Lkcl (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This template should probably focus on Programming Languages that doesn't have a foundation. Because programming languages that have a foundation like Groovy, Pascal (Delphi), Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, SmallTalk most of them already have a template and they should be expanded. Generally speaking they all have the similar pattern of development. Founders, history, implementations (e.g. .NET, Java), Frameworks, Web Application Frameworks (RIAs) and then the miscellaneous Ajax, Widgets, GUI, SDK toolkits, plug-ins...etc.
- I agree with expanding individual programming language templates, each having a section for frameworks. I also suggest pruning this general templates of web application frameworks to get rid of redlinks and others that doesn't belong here. Dinhelt (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible links this template will encompass
- e.g. Mobile Application Framework (regarding this part I am still stuck, because they are some that have some Foundations e.g. Palm, Symbian, Ubuntu Mobile, but they are just too small for a template).
- Ajax, Widgets, Libraries, Plug-ins, SDK, toolkits (GWT, Y!OS), GUI
- you will likely find that there already exist categories and templates for those categories, already, and you will likely find that people have already added their framework to those that already exist. if not - yes, they should be created, but NOT as a "substitute" for this category (application frameworks). Lkcl (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently I am thinking there probably needs an Adobe template, this should encompass Flex, Coldfusion, Adobe AIR and maybe Dreamweaver / GoLive. Because there is a lot of development if you go look at "[http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Projects Adobe Open Source Project"
- Extensible Metadata Platform
- Flash Ajax video component
- Flex SDK
- Generic Image Library (GIL)
- Adobe Media Gallery (AMG)
- -engine for Mozilla
- -(ACVM in Flash Player) in SpiderMonkey
For people who are interested in expanding the Python programming languages please
The expansion will discuss about
- Template:Python (programming language)
- Template:Python Web Application Frameworks
- Template:Application frameworks
Sorry I pressed "save page" too fast resulting unfinished edit summary sentence. It is suppose to say
- Ruby group removed, there is already a template Ruby (Template:Ruby programming language).
I think to provide a better navigation. It might be better if we provide "Categories" link to each programming languages instead of listing them. I meant by only list the programming languages that doesn't have its own template. I mean it is very clearly that template like Ruby and Python provide a much better guide than listing them in here unnecessarily. Also we shouldn't forget that "the purpose" of a template is not meant to be the same as a "list" or "comparasion list."
This template has various problems; it should use capitalization according to guidelines and it is not clear what the first row is used for, besides it contains irrelevant links like dmoz. --Canaima (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Joomla as a framework?
What makes Joomla a framework, as opposed to a mere Content management system? The article itself makes no mention that it is a framework, nor does it belong in the Web application frameworks category. It is also not listed in Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks. Joshuaali (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
What makes Joomla! a framework is that it is designed using MVC practices, and provides a very large number of API tools for the developer to leverage. It is one of the most sophisticated PHP frameworks available, way ahead of Drupal, or Wordpress, despite Joomla!'s rather clunky UI. Adding back to the list, and to the Comparison. HobbesPDX (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Required to have an article first
Taking my cue from another removal in the history, I removed Circumflex and Scotty, because they don't have wiki pages yet. My assumption is that it is reasonable to require that a framework have an article written about it before it deserves to be in this template. Reasonable? One might go further and require that a framework actually be notable (or have been assessed, or have been assessed with a certain minimal rating) before appearing in this list, but maybe that would be going too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharner (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Totally reasonable, navboxes are there to provide links to articles. Regarding the notability, an article can't be created if it isn't describing a notable thing (in this case a notable framework), so that's already covered. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)