PECL's and Wrapper classes

Hi, Shouldn't we implicitely allow - without voting - wrapper classes for PECL's, after a new PECL was accepted. I think there is no need for another voting of the same thing, or? Another possibility is to do this the other way round: Proposing a new package, but it's up to the developer if there is a PECL behind this package or PHP code. For my last package proposal, this means, I had to propose NET_MQSeries and in fact this package consists of the wrapper classes and of the PECL mqseries. Is this a good or a bad idea or ...? bye, -- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Michael Bretterklieber - Michael.Bretterklieber@jawa.at JAWA Management Software GmbH - http://www.jawa.at Liebenauer Hauptstr. 200 -------------- privat --------------- A-8041 GRAZ GSM: ++43-(0)676-93 96 698 Tel: ++43-(0)316-403274-12 E-mail: michael@bretterklieber.com Fax: ++43-(0)316-403274-10 http://www.bretterklieber.com ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972