RE: [PEAR-DEV] The point (BC breakage)

> But I somehow dislike the _v2 directory thing. It doesn't look > clean to me. > That may be a very subjective point of view. Personally, I don't like it the best, but it seems to programmaticly and logically be the cleanest way to handle this. > > On the other hand after reading the latest discussion I am > tending to think > that > your proposal is the easiest way to go to allow concurrent packages. > (((I would still prefer a more radical change which abstracts the package > directory from the userland))) How would this look? I think that any solution to this problem should be considered at least. Are you saying that there should be a PEAR::factory("foo_v2") thingy? If so, how would multiple versions of files be handled in the repository. Why not do what Greg is suggesting and a factory class that would hide it somewhat? > > BUT! I don't want this discussion to run in circles and as I really see a > need for a solution to this problem > (even if others not see any problem) I am +1 on your proposal (even if > nobody else cares :) ) Agreed. Unfortunately, most of the discussion has been along the lines of there being a problem at all. As long as we are willing to agree that there is a problem in the first place, then a solution can be reached? Thanks, Rob