Re: Proposal: File_Apache
| From: | Michael Wallner | Date: | Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:50:06 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: File_Apache | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-21448@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
just making a first small summary:
Mika Tuupola:
o no extra package File_Apache
o implement some features into original File_HtAccess
o improve File_Passwd
o introduce File_HtGroup
Marshall Roch:
o modularization of HtAccess
+ HtAccess
+ HtAccess_Auth
+ HtAccess_Rewrite
+ HtAccess_...
I'm basically not against not making an extra package, if most
people think that it would not be a good idea to introduce
File_Apache on its own.
*If so, I would suggest the following*:
Mika has already agreed to review my code over the weekend for
checking how to merge our both HtAccess classes the best way.
I don't know if splitting HtAccess into many modules is the best
way. Even though it's a big file, it's not as huge as others and
the API is straight and comprehensive, so what do you guys think
about that?
Introduce package File_HtGroup.
Introduce package File_HtPasswd, because I think separating
classes for different purposes is not a /that bad/ idea, btw
there is also a package called File_SMBPasswd.
Adapt the API of File_HtGroup and File_HtPasswd to the current
commonly used methods load() and save().
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQE/YhVe3645gzRPvy8RArCEAJ9P7XuXa6l3RvK4Az14FtHV+z8NRQCeJIvI
gzbRF5ErIePa8K415rZbK1Q=
=k4YP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----