Re: Package Proposal: UDDI

Hello Alexander, Alexander Merz wrote: > Christian Wenz wrote: > > > well, PEAR error handling is not a PEAR requirement yet, but the first > It is. thanks for the info, could you point me to where this requirement is made known? I scanned the manual some time ago, however the only thing I found about error reporting and contributing to PEAR is: > [...] you are using code that [...] provides the same error reporting mechanism > everywhere. (at the end of chapter 8.) - which IMHO does not say that specifically the PEAR error classes need to be used I also remembered this discussion from three days ago: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=106044153427673&w=2 This also IMHO says that the PEAR error classes are not (yet) required. Cheers, Christian