Re: question about PEAR vs. Zzoss installer
| From: | Tomas V.V.Cox | Date: | Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:54:53 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: question about PEAR vs. Zzoss installer | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-20652@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sunday, August 17, 2003 0:10, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2003 at 15:14, Greg Beaver wrote:
>> Stefan Neufeind wrote:
>>
>> >I'm +1 for adding such an optional parameter, if this doesn't lead to
>> > (technical) problems - e.g. when detecting if a package is installed
>> > or not etc.
>> >
>> This should only affect the download stage of installation - once a
>> package is installed, it is registered using the package.xml. There
>> is a new problem that would be introduced, that of namespace. In
>> other words, someone might release a package called "Config" or
>> "XML_Util" that has nothing to do with PEAR. In this case, the
>> installer would get confused about version numbering, not realizing
>> that it's a different package entirely.
> Well in Java afaik they handle namespaces by including domainnames to
> indicate the namespace. If I remember correctly
> class com.sun.java.Class1
> or something (read from left to right). This does not necessarily be
> the url under which the package can be found but this is just a
> solution to ensure that it's unique. Maybe we could implement a
> similar namespace for "pear.php.net"? Having just PEAR::Package would
> also be okay - but what if more people use it and e.g. many people
> are named "Mueller" or similar as surname. Then Mueller::Package
> wouldn't be unique any longer.
That's more or less what we are disscussing at pear-group, where we
called that concept as "channels" (you know redcarpet?). pear.php.net would be a channel
and
for example the Horde guys could setup a channel too. Each channel would
have its own config and its own internal rules and this should avoid
name space conflicts. Btw the idea is to provide an easy way for
external people to setup their own channel.
Hope the discussion doesn't get lost and the pear group can write an
open RFC.
Anyway, any PEAR package should depend on an package out of the control
and rules of PEAR. It's the main recommendation I'd say about this
topic.
--
Tomas V.V.Cox mailto:cox@idecnet.com