Re: PEAR Forum

scott [gts] wrote:

-----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.

Yes. But PEAR Forum has two part's (see my previous post in this thread). Apps can't really be in the PEAR tree bundled with PHP since the files need in the webroot. And, it's not phorum anymore, the phorum team dropped phorum4 without asking or notifying the author, me.