Re: RFC Nested Set manipulation class

should we discuss or/and define a common API for the Tree-classes? to provide a common API for all Tree classes in PEAR? I would suggest so. I could also imagine to have a look into DOM may be there are some good ideas and *may be* it makes sense using the same method names what do people think? Daniel Khan wrote:

Lukas Smith schrieb: [..]

So these methods could be easily put into the wrappers.

Great. Then it could have a similar structure than DB and MDB have. Hans would you be willing to take care of this? You have a common class and a class that extends it .. either with the DB or the MDB method calls. The include would then be placed in the file that extends the common class. I have not looked at your class, but you would then need a factory class to handle object creation which would wither return an instance of DB_NestedSet (which extends Common_NestedSet) or MDB_NestedSet (which also extends Common_NestedSet).

Yes that's right. I will do the following if you agree. I'll try to detach PEAR::DB calls into a separate class. The infrastructure I will need for that will be the same PEAR::MDB needs. After I've done this the MDB wrapper can be created by simply rewriting the DB wrapper. ACK? -- Daniel [datenPUNK] Khan

-- Wolfram ... opensource @ vision:produktion ... http://opensource.visionp.de ... translating template engine .... http://sf.net/projects/simpletpl ... authentication system .... http://sf.net/projects/auth