Re: why don't most classes extend PEAR?
| From: | Martin Jansen | Date: | Thu, 06 Sep 2001 06:28:57 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: why don't most classes extend PEAR? | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-1817@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 18:14:01 -0700, greg keraunen wrote:
>in spite of PEAR as a recommended base class, i've noticed that most of
>the classes in pear directory don't extend PEAR. is there a good reason
>for this?
The classes, which don't extend PEAR simply don't need the feature set
served by the PEAR base classes. So it would be simply a waste of
execution time to include/require the PEAR class.
>if i write a class that extends PEAR, shouldn't it be called
>PEAR_myClass and reside inside pear/PEAR directory instead of inside
>pear?
No. :-)
>I thought this was the intended convention on directory structure
>but the cvs tree doesn't reflect that.
The class PEAR has some kind of "VIP status" among the other classes
in the PEAR repository and so using PEAR.php does not need to be
reflected in the directory structure of your class.
- Martin