Comments on: Seagull Gets Top Marks in Recent Framework Comparison

By: Demian Turner

Demian Turner — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:48:53 +0000

Seagull has full Ajax integration, Prototype/Scriptaculous are integrated by default as is Html_Ajax. Search the wiki for Dojo integration tips.

By: Bijay Rungta

Bijay Rungta — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:19:37 +0000

The only thing where Seagull Framework lays behind is AJAX framework. So what are we doing on this front.

Am I missing out on something??

I guess we can integrate dojo toolkit there, but Dojo has a lot of bugs as of now. I need to do a lot of studying before I choose dojo.

What do you guys say??

By: dasarath

dasarath — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:00:50 +0000

it,s amaging &intresting

By: Eris Ristemena

Eris Ristemena — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:32:24 +0000

I have my own version of how to determine which is the most wanted framework. And Zend came out first.

http://blog.ngoprek.web.id/2006/10/08/top-php-framework/

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:13:44 +0000

In that comparison, is not included this framework (it’s only just now growing in popularity) we made. If anyone cares to take a look, it’s at phpwebbuilder.sourceforge.net

By: PHP kitchen

PHP kitchen — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:32:31 +0000

PHP CMS/framework Reviews

Solar (12.08.05)
Seagull [Italian] [English](04.08.05)
Xaraya
(31.05.05)XOOPS (12.03.05)
Drupal
ezContents
ezPublish, ezPublish
e107
Geeklog
Mambo, Mambo, Mambo
Mambo
Vs Postnuke, Mambo Vs Every

By: Dennis Pallett

Dennis Pallett — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:09:43 +0000

Richard@Home: I replied to you on PHPit, but I did more than just checking homepages, and making the chart took considerable time.

By: Demian Turner

Demian Turner — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:48:44 +0000

I agree there seems to be quite a demand for a resource that would allow developers to efficiently appraise all the framework choices out there – to date what’s on offer has been of mixed quality. Not to mention the fact framework quality is often a moving target.

By: Richard@Home

Richard@Home — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:21:10 +0000

While I have no doubt seagull is an excellent piece of work, the ‘review’ in question was pretty useless. It looks like the author didn’t ‘test’ the products, but simply visited their homepages and check off a bunch of features. He certainly didn’t do any of the projects the justice they deserved.

By: Demian Turner

Demian Turner — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:35:24 +0000

Oops, I mistakenly thought there were positive connotations for ‘infamous’ – now updated. Thanks