Re: Obsoleting PEAR.php

On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 18:31, Sterling Hughes wrote: > On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 19:51, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > > On 15 May 2003 18:17:43 -0400 > > Sterling Hughes <sterling@bumblebury.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Well, ok, I guess I'm either starting a flamewar, or rehashing > > > something that's already been decided. Poo Tee Weet. > > > > > > One of my major problems with PEAR is the underlying framework. > > > Nearly every class in PEAR seems to extend from the PEAR base class, > > > when its really not required for most of them [1]. The end result of > > > this is*slower* code that is a part of the framework. I suggest that > > > for now we start removing the usage of the PEAR class from the large > > > majority of code in PEAR. This should speed up the code considerably > > > (no extra overhead). > > > > In most cases we should not extends PEAR directly (and require_ it). > > So I agree with you while not extends PEAR for useless reasons (I > > removed it from HTML_Javascript 2 weeks ago for the same reason). > > I usually include PEAR only for the Error class. > > > > Maybe a well view on the PEAR_Error system and how it can be used can > > help to make things cleaner (i.e does not extend PEAR just to have the > > errors methods ;). I point you on http://www.php-mag.net > > with a nice > > article from Alexander about Pear_Error. > > > > Yep, the error system is a good usage for PEAR, and I'm not talking > about requiring it. The include doesn't concern me, it's extending PEAR > itself, that's unnecessary and used quite a bit. about *not* requiring it. :) -Sterling -- "Whether you think you can or think you can't -- you are right." - Henry Ford