bolverk wrote:@Eelke, I think creating several layers of complexity in the naming scheme is not really a good idea.
I never said it was
BTW, I suppose you are referring to what I said about Joomla? In fact, the difference is not as big as it might seem. If you compare Joomla with Drupal, for example, both have roughly the same concepts. Joomla only chooses to "bother" the person installing the extension with the type of extension-mechanism employed by the extension, whereas in Drupal, an extension can simply implement any (and all) of the available extension mechanisms. I prefer that system.
Another point that I think would be nice to give some thought to up front is how the installation of extensions is handled (not sure if this should be a new topic). I prefer the method employed by Drupal, where the code is "leading". What I mean by that: in Drupal, you install an extension (module, in Drupal terminology) simply by copying over some files. You activate the module by going to a module management page and activating the module, at which time all required database changes are made. In Joomla, you need to "install" a module, by uploading a zip file, which is unzipped, files placed in various places and changes to the database made. This is nice, until you try and use different environments (e.g. local development, staging, production), because the files/code will be in your version control repository, but the required database changes really only are made when the extension is "installed" (which will fail when the files the installation tries to copy are already present). The "workaround" is doing the install locally and tracking the database changes, which you roll into a SQL script, which needs to be executed on every environment when the code is updated to include the new extension). With Drupal, it's a simple matter of doing an update (files will be pulled from the repo) and then enabling the module on the new environment.