Common Setup package (do pear packages create their own seperate DB connections?)

the last discussion started by Jeroen makes me come up with this topic again. I would suggest to provide some kind of Common-package in PEAR, which contains some classes like: - ([M]DB-)connection setup (i.e. PEAR_Common_Connection_DB) - set/getOption (i.e. PEAR_Common_Option) Those would be mini-classes which currently a lot of packages implement over and over again. For some packages it would mean overhead but i think the majority would profit from it. Those Common-classes could be combined with the actual package using the Decorator pattern (i think its not the best way, just a first thought, better suggestions are welcome). PEAR_Common_Connection_DB would provide i.e. - connect() - getInstance() - disconnect() PEAR_Common_Option would provide i.e. - setOption() - getOption() - getOptions() I experienced that in Xipe, Tree and Auth (not PEAR::Auth but [1]) i am using the code always again to implement this functionality and this topic is already bothering me for quite a while. Opinions? -- Wolfram ... opensource @ vision:produktion ... http://opensource.visionp.de ... translating template engine .... http://sf.net/projects/simpletpl ... authentication system .... [1] http://sf.net/projects/auth