Re: Update (was: File_Apache)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Mika Tuupola, you wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Michael Wallner wrote: >>Hm, do you see any obstacles? > > Yes. BC among other things. Well, yes. BC has ever and should be important. I hope you don't misunderstand me :) I don't want to replace Mika's HtAccess with Mike's HtAccess, although I think adapting my calss would be far easier, I've not to decide this. Hovewer let me know whenever I might help you. BTW I'm interested in which features you plan to implement :) >>File_Passwd seems mostly useless on Win32, but not File_HtPasswd > > So why not make it usable on on win32? Of course, and I'm willing to do that if you want. > Obviously we are on totally different paths in here. I am > not the one to decide whether there will be another > package. If pear-dev people vote for another password package > then it is of course welcome. > > I'd vote for improving existing package. I see. But give me another chance to explain what I mean - for you and others: Wouldn't it be better having more stable classes for exactly one purpose (particularly with passwords) that the certain class handles mostly perfect? I think maintaining a huge password package which can parse and write any password-like-file would be very hard, and the users of this class must spend a lot of time figuring out which methods and settings are the right for their needs, inspite of using exactly the one class you would need to handle their password file. Michael, hopefully made comprehensive what he's thinking of :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Cygwin) iD8DBQE/ZIJ93645gzRPvy8RAsEoAJ9KHZMWOoXhxhvxdjvVV6xZHVvWrwCdEnG/ j1zCycIdApjx5CSgU3mcE6Y= =SQxv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----