Re: PEAR_DelegateOwner

On 16 Nov 2003, at 3:12 PM, Bertrand Mansion wrote:

<LingWitt@insightbb.com> wrote :

You are right. I explained that this is not exactly the traditional method of delegation in another email. I believe I also mention that in the documentation. Nevertheless, this is a powerful capability, and if the name does not sit so well with you, why not change it? Is it the capability that fails to enthuse you, or is it the name? On 16 Nov 2003, at 1:38 PM, Bertrand Mansion wrote:

Your code is not delegation IMO :) The principle is to call the method if it is implemented in the delegate. If it is not, well, so be it, don't call it. There is no need to raise an error or whatever. Am I wrong ?

Indeed, I think you should find another name. The problem with 'Delegate' is that some people might think it's delegation for PHP. But it's not exactly, it's rather an hack of the concept. Sorry, I don't have ideas on how to call it. Apart from that, I don't have a problem with the capabilities and I think its place is in the Pear class as you suggested. But I am not the maintainer, so don't take my POV into too much consideration.

Perhaps PEAR_Augmenter?