Re: Re: PFC-RFC Update

On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 01:27 AM, Christian Stocker wrote:

To sum up: I see the negative point of the PFC-code vs. this-is-bad-non-pfc-code proposal. Therefore some more information on non-PFC-classes, why they are not bad at all, wouldn't hurt anyone.

Could we add limitations as to the types of packages that can be accepted into PFC, which are considered the "foundation" of the majority of packages out there? PFC will be viewed essentially as PHP's "standard library", an equivalent to Java's standard library, Perl's pre-installed modules, the C++ standard library, etc. Some types of packages simply don't belong there. This way, the foundation classes serve as PHP's foundation, and are of extremely high quality, but we would then have to put trust and care (probably not by the PFC Testers) into the rest of PEAR as well, because packages that do really cool things, but things that only a marginal group of users might need, can still be as reliable as possible (or no less reliable than what we have currently). Thoughts? :) Lux

But I really don't want too much work on single people and make the whole system dependent on having people around with enough time. chregu -- PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

-- John Luxford President and Chief Developer ______________________________ SIMIAN systems Driving Web Content Management ______________________________ web : http://www.simian.ca/ email : lux@simian.ca phone : 204.452.8537