Re: Package proposal: HTML_QuickForm_Controller

Hi, I'm all for having it as a subpackage :). I'm not biased! honest! I may have some time to look into solving the listing issues that Lukas brought up (subpackages must not be listed in the pear list command, or pear remote-list, and perhaps a new option can be added like pear list --subpackages packagename. This is OT however). I haven't had time to properly review your code Alexey, but I love what I've seen so far. I am +1 for the addition, and will have specific comments when I have time to look for small things that might need fixing (nothing big seems awry) Greg Alexey Borzov wrote:

Hi! Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

The code is clean (as usual). But i wonder, why does it have to be released as a separate package since it only makes sense with quickform (or i got it wrong ;) ?

No, you got it right, it can be considered a subpackage of QuickForm. Reasons for a separate package: Main reason: This is beta quality code so the release schedule should be different from QuickForm (which is stable). Other reason: QuickForm is already BIG. Current CVS version has 40 *.php files not counting examples (release 3.1 has less). This code is not required for base QuickForm operations and thus can be kept in a separate package. Of course, if it is not accepted as a separate package, it will end up in QuickForm. Well, I suppose everyone is waiting for Bertrand's reaction, as lots of people apparently looked at the code and the demos but no one voted/commented yet. ;]