Re: AW: [PEAR-DEV] Re: [RfC] XML_Beautifier

On 20 Sep 2003 at 0:08, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > > typos: > > /** > > * @param string $newFile filename for beautified XML file (if > > noen is given, the original file is overwritetn) */ function > > formatFile($file, $newFile = null) > Thanks, I'll change this. > > > I really like the apiVersion() method - can we make this a > > requirement > > for new pear packages and new releases of current packages? > Then we should find a solution to make sure the return value and the > version number in the package.xml are the same... > > How about implementing a feature in PEAR_PackageFileManager that > extracts the apiVersion and inserts it in the package.xml file? I guess apiVersion 2.0 will be our Foo2 soon, right? So the package- name already implied the API version number. Or am I wrong? Do we really need an "API version" tag? In my eyes the only thing this would make sense for is that a dev who writes a new package that relies on some others could look up in which package versions the current API (more clearly: functions of the API he uses) was introduced to add a dep to the lowest possible version of all packages. But I guess this is not easy to do anyways - and I guess that apiVersion won't help is much in this case. But what for do we need the apiVersion-tag? I didn't yet get why we should demand adding a new fuction for that. Maybe as others said we could add it to the package.xml - wouldn't that be sufficient? And wherefor apiVersion at all? Stefan