Re: Possible package...not quite proposed (fwd)

Sorry forgot to email the list too... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:08:09 -0600 (CST) From: Tony Bibbs <tony@tonybibbs.com> To: Markus Wolff <wolff@21st.de> Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] Possible package...not quite proposed On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Markus Wolff wrote: > function processRequest($A) > { > global $_CONF, $_TABLES; > You can ignore these. They are very specific to the app I was working with. They would not be needed in teh main package. > Also, you seem to include your files using dirname(__FILE__), which I > like to do as well, but there´s been a discussion on this list a while > ago where this was disapproved. I don't mind changing this in CVS. I have a hosted account where include('somefile.php') doesn't work as expected (I suspect an unset include_path) > > What I´d like to know is: Where do you see the advantage of your package > in comparison to using, let´s say, SOAP via email? SOAP has its place. I didn't see a need for it here. I haven't done a line count but the footprint of the code is tiny compared to a SOAP solution doing the same thing (if you factor in the code in the SOAP librareis). Also, there are no other PEAR dependencies which is nice. Risking sounding a bit arrogant, this seems small, easy and clean. -- Tony Bibbs "I guess you have to remember that those who don't tony@tonybibbs.com hunt or fish often see those of us who do as harmlessly strange and sort of amusing. When you think about it, that might be a fair assessment." --Unknown