OO wrappers (was : Need 1 more vote for Image_IPTC class)

Le mar 08/04/2003 à 12:49, Wolfram Kriesing a écrit : > > Why? If a class does nothing except wrap lower-level functions, why in > > the world would there be any need for such a class? You are adding pure > > overhead, and as an added bonus you make my eyes bleed. > > i think there are some people who are more comfortable with > OO-interfaces. If one doesnt like it one doesnt have to use it. > > I am not saying this is not adding overhead. But it's still one's > decision to use it. > It's there, but it's not a replacement! So everyone is free to decide > either to use it or not. I agree with Rasmus. Everybody know the existence of "programming fashions". OO is one of this fashions, and so if a developper has the choice of using an OO wrapper or the low-level function, you can be sure he will choose to use the OO class, neglecting the overhead. And when the wrapper is used in another PEAR package, you're forced to make do with the overhead if you need the package's functionnality. Of course the wrapper is useful if the plan is to expand functionnality to the low-level function through it in the future. My $.02 Antoine Pouch