Re: possible (real) Net_ICQ/AIM/OSCAR pear package (?)

On Saturday, August 9, 2003 18:54, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > On 9 Aug 2003 at 13:45, Cristiano Duarte wrote: >> "Tomas V.V.Cox" <cox@idecnet.com> escreveu na mensagem >> news:819829944.20030809165916@idecnet.com... >> > The class name should be Net_OSCAR. In the future if more "IM" >> > protocols are added, we could think on building an abstract class >> > with a common interface to all those classes. It's very important >> > that the original >> desing of the Net_ICQ >> > takes that in mind (also for the IRC classes we already have, as >> > they also fit in the "IM" idea). >> >> IMHO, I think Net_IM is better than Net_OSCAR. >> Net_OSCAR can be a specialization of the abstract class Net_IM. This >> can leave other developers free to make other IM protocol >> implementation based on the Net_IM class. > Agreed! I would suggest a similar way like we do it with Validate :- > )) > Having "Net_IM.php" for the common class or "Net_IM/Oscar.php" if you > only want to talk to the Oscar-protocol or need special features. > So I would suggest for the Oscar-implementor to also develop a > general Net_IM-class as an abstraction layer. For sure, when other > protocols are added later, maybe this abstractionlayer needs to > change a bit. But release it as a first alpha for discussion. > +1 for Net_IM with Net_IM/Oscar.php I would preffer to separate the packages. The goals for an unified Net_IM are too big. IMHO each protocol should have its own package, developers, release cycle, doc, etc, and if there is people willing to create the abstraction package Net_IM, it would be another package too: $ pear install Net_IM Failed dependecies, needs: Net_OSCAR > vX.X Net_IRC > vX.X Net_MSN > xX.X -- Tomas V.V.Cox mailto:cox@idecnet.com