Re: why don't most classes extend PEAR?

"Tomas V.V.Cox" wrote: > > > >Has there been any discussion of a standard versionID format for all > > >PEAR classes? (consistent with PHP?) Or is this going to be handled by > > >some build/release process for PEAR? > > > > The maintainer of a PEAR class will decide at what time he releases > > a new version. So it is IMO his job to keep track of the versioning. > > > Stig from time to time, writes interesting docs :-). Here is the one > related to software versioning: > http://cvs.php.net/co.php/pearweb/sql/design.txt?r=1.6 Thanks for all the links! Haven't read them yet. I like the idea of basic standards with little overhead that will get extended widely. If people are avoiding extending PEAR because of overhead then maybe there is a need for a simpler base class that just does runtime dependency checking between classes or something. In my case, I'm avoiding extending PEAR for now because I don't have control over php installion on my hosted site and can't run pearize or dl(PEAR.so). I think whatever standards are most important should be easy to install for someone without root permissions on a run of the mill hosted php installation that might be behind the curve in maintenance. - greg