Re: [REMINDER][RfC] Net_ICQ

On Wednesday, July 16, 2003 23:04, Mirco 'meebey' Bauer wrote: > On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 22:22, Ivan Stojic wrote: >> Net_ICQ_Lite, like Alexander suggested sounds cool to me. I think that >> in this case using _Lite is a good thing because this class cannot be >> further extended - it is complete the way it is. >> >> Just my $1/50 ;) >> > +1 for Net_ICQ_Lite IMHO, the "Lite" concept does not represent this case. Lite is something like "lightweight" not limited to 2 simple http functions. Name would be more HTTP_ICQ than Net_XX. I'm -1 for this package, until it provides more functionality. -- Tomas V.V.Cox mailto:cox@idecnet.com