RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR Forum

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: ssb@kirin.trondheim.fast.no [mailto:ssb@kirin.trondheim.fast.no]On > Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR Forum > > > ["Tomas V.V.Cox" <cox@idecnet.com>] > > Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: > > > > > > PEAR has room for larger packages like Phorum (the "A" in PEAR is for > > > "Application" after all), but we haven't quite figured out a way to > > > integrate them yet. > > > > > > We need to figure out how to fit applications into the package > > > namespace. I guess it cooks down to picking one of these two options: > > > > > > 1. Each application gets its own top-level package name. Pros: > > > simple. Cons: may clash with topics we may want to add later. If > > > application packages have fairly unique names it shouldn't matter. > > > > > > 2. Each application prepends something to its package name, for > > > example "App_". Pros: won't clash with topics. Cons: it just > > > looks silly. > > > > > > I'm in favor of (1). > > > > > > > What about a top level "Apps" category? Any way, apps like Phorum needs > > to be enterily installed under the web document root and installing it > > in the pear base directory hasn't much sense (at least public files). > > I see a point in distinguishing ready-to-run web applications from > pure library packages and eventually extensions detached from PHP. > Having one top-level category for each is a pretty straightforward way > to solve it. > > - Stig I agree. Having a structure like "Apps/BBS/Phorum" would make it much easier for average PHP/PEAR users (like me) to find what they're looking for... and easier for the maintainers to keep things nicely organized. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBO7Txj8aXTGgZdrSUEQKmRQCgiMr3nVEYAQdadSFMKkjutfzDhhwAoMIm 8F2UfZRXqYzlY7UcWxK9aQC+ =kD7P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----