Re: Re: [dev] Re: Horde Browser.lib and Crypt_PGP

> > > The PEAR community, however, seems to want control of the code instead. > > Hopefully I'm wrong about this or it will change, but that is the > > impression I keep getting every time I mention this. > > Actually I'm afraid that you're right, which is a pitty. *Personally* > I'm very happy with the pear.horde.org approach and I think you should > push this forward. I agree with you that there is absolutely no sense in > ripping code out of Horde and putting it into PEAR. The disadvantages do > exceed the advantages. And what about having the best of 2 worlds? Making some horde clases in a way that let the same code been a horde lib and a PEAR package?. The development (CVS) will be in horde and when somebody considers that a class (Crypt_PGP for example) is stable, that code will be packed as a PEAR Package and uploaded to PEAR. so you can use the same code in HORDE or in any other application. there is only 1 problematic line of code... the include_once in HORDE that line should be include HORDE_BASE . 'HORDE/DEPENDENCY.php'; and in PEAR include_once(´PEAR/Depencency´); the rest of the code will be the same The packager has the responsability to fix that line before uploading to PEAR. and the same code will be in both Projects. > > Again, what is the problem with just making the code out of Horde CVS > > packageable? No one has bothered to answer this question! > > There is absolutely NO problem. Don't listen to the voices :-). I say that the package should be in PEAR, the development will be where the developer wants to. (you can develop a PEAR class in sf.net and have the package in PEAR) I like to have PGP functionality in HORDE but also I need to have that functionality _outside_ horde. ------------------------------------------------- Mail enviado desde el CNBA http://www.cnba.uba.ar/ -----