Re: Categories (was Re: [PEAR-DEV] New HTML Form class for PEAR)
| From: | (Stig Sæther Bakken) | Date: | Sun, 02 Sep 2001 18:59:46 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Categories (was Re: [PEAR-DEV] New HTML Form class for PEAR) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-1761@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
["Tomas V.V.Cox" <cox@idecnet.com>]
> "Stig S. Bakken" wrote:
> >
> > "Tomas V.V.Cox" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not HTML_QForm, HTML_QuickForm or something like that? It's
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > replacement for HTML_Form after all, so it shouldn't look like a
> > > > > > "sub-package", which IMHO HTML_Form_Quick would.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Umm.. didn't know it will be a replacement for Form. If it is so,
> > > > > HTML_Form would be the right choose, to don't break the convention :-?
> > > >
> > > > Uhm well, I meant a replacement [for the functionality provided by]
> > > > HTML_Form. If we want it to replace HTML_Form, it has to be
> > > > API-compatible etc, which may not be *cough* optimal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So, if it's different and Ulf is creating his XML forms, why not create
> > > this new category? It's just a way to don't have the HTML dir full of
> > > form classes.
> >
> > Okay, we need to get the category concept straight before going any
> > further.
> >
> > IMHO categories should be given human/English names, such as "Database",
> > "Encryption" and so on instead of being based on package names.
>
> Sure, it should be so.
>
> >Their
> > only purpose is to provide categorization primarily for us humans, the
> > names and structure of the packages themselves is slightly different.
>
> Well, category names are human friendly, but IMHO still we need to map
> 1:1 "human categories" with "packages name spaces".
>
> Category -> Dir
> ---------------------
> Databases DB
> Foobiscus Foo
>
> If not, we will end with a package Bar in category "Network" but
> installed in directory XML/Net (for saying something). I see a mess in
> the horizon :-)
IMHO this isn't realistic. "DB" is a database abstraction layer. You
can't require any database-related package to be called DB_something.
Since PEAR is going to let packages with similar functionality
co-exist, it just can't be 1:1 between "package spaces" and
categories.
> > A "Forms" top-level category would probably be what we needed if there
> > is XML form stuff coming too.
>
> Top-level? Please explain me why top level and not sub-category of HTML.
What if someone makes an "über-forms-package" that deals with HTML,
XHTML, WML and PDF/FDF? :-)
- Stig
--
Stig Sæther Bakken <ssb@alltheweb.com>
Fast Search & Transfer ASA, Trondheim, Norway