Re: AW: [PEAR-DEV] Proposal: XML_Util

Hi Stephan, You could redefine RaiseError() as a wrapper around PEAR::raiseError() without extending PEAR, if that would make Martin happier. If XML_Util is never going to be instantiated, I don't see this as necessary, however. Incidentally, if the entire class is only static methods, you can add a @static tag in the class's docblock so people know this. I wouldn't recommend making the class static if there are any inter-method dependencies, as that is the problem with other static classes like File: they can't be modified at all, only re-written. Greg Stephan Schmidt wrote:

Hi,

Why do you derive XML_Util from PEAR? That's absolutely not needed.

I'd like to use XML_Util::raiseError() or is there a better way to return errors from the static methods.

Apart from that there are some CS issues left:

OK, I'll adjust this...

I'm +1 for this as long as there will be documentation in plain text or Docbook available. Otherwise I'm -1. (XML_Util sounds fine for me, btw.)

I'll add docbook documentation to peardoc as soon as possible. I could also add some plain text documentation of the methods to the package itself. Stephan