Re: Package proposal: Mail_Mime (alternative)

On 21 Aug 2003 at 21:45, Heino H. Gehlsen wrote: > > Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > > > > I think Heine's point is that it would benefit PEAR to have > > > > explicit support for multiple pear-style servers, to allow > > > > installation from other repositories without having to worry > > > > about naming conflicts (i.e. the package "Log" from pear.php.net > > > > may conflict with the package "Log" from foo.gronk.org, but not > > > > if Log is in PEAR/Log and FOO/Log) > > > > > > Exactly ;) > > > > But how do you want to ensure that only one person uses Foo? > > Well, It's impossible to prevent anyone from 'abusing' allready used > names, and there would allways be a chance that a user overrides a > class if they really wanted to. A very simple way to prevent serious > repositories from bumping into each other is having an official list > of used prefixes for known repositories on PEAR's website - serious > repositories could then apply for a 'permanent' directory/prefix. Yes, maybe that would be a solution. But for smaller repositories / sites / releases from a single person or company we would also need some "private" adress-space, like the scheme described with the domainnames for example. Afaik it works fine for the java-world. > No matter how this problem could be solved the whole PEAR repository > would have to be moved itself before this kind of discussion would > make any difference... Totally agreed. But since this change would be really big I hope we will be able to solve that problem "on the go" when moving to a multi- version-pear-system. But that's another discussion on this list *g* > > Hmm ... as proposed earlier - should a unique domainname > > (like with java-classes, in reversed order) be used? > > Like "org.horde/Log" or "de.speedpartner.de/Log"? > > This way you could make the dirs really unique. > > I hadn't actually thought seriously about this, because I don't se how > the repository's name could be used as a prefix in the classnames. > What's the point of allowing coexisting repositories is separate > directories, if the classnames are not also required/able to identify > which repository the class belongs to? Of cause it would be possible > to call the classes something like Org_Horde_Log etc. but that would > be a royal pain in the butt. Agreed. > I'm used to Java, and actually like the idea, but since PHP/PEAR > have no jave-like 'import' facility, I'm not sure this is the best > way (unless PEAR core could somehow make an import feature, > where users could manually give classes short nicknames or > something like that ;) The problem will be solved when we have "namespace"-support in php. I guess this will be when PHP5 / Zend engine 2 comes out - or even later. And while some people still use PHP4 we can't make use of this feature in PEAR for quite a while :-( > > Maybe we could allow certain "special" names, which should be named > > by pear-group: I would think of having "PEAR" a special name and > > "Horde" maybe also, since these are the largest two repositories > > important for us at the moment. Or would you say only pear is a > > special-name that doesn't need a full domain? > > At least the PEAR core should have a special name. The rest of PEAR I > personally would like to se treated as any other serious repository, > but I suppose that might be a litte to controversial for some of folks > arround here ;) We'll see. As you said above we can't change anything at the moment and can't introduce something new until pear has not moved to "pear/". So let's wait what the outcome of this discussion (separate thread) will be. Stefan