Re: Re: [Call for Votes] Payment_Process

On Wednesday 17 December 2003 03:21 pm, Davey wrote: > Ian Eure wrote: > > I believe that all the issues raised by my RFC[1] and Proposal[2] have > > been addressed. Therefore, I'm requesting a call for votes for > > Payment_Process. > > OK, > > Vote: *Conditional* +1 (see below) > Review: cursory review of code > Account: davey > > Comments: > > Why does this extend PEAR? Then you go onto call PEAR::isError, > PEAR::raiseError statically. I think the extension of PEAR is > unnecessary, a common mistake it seems. This generates lots of uneeded > overhead. > > Full apidoc should be added. This is the *minimum* documentation I feel > *any* code should have to be allowed into PEAR. > > Fix these and I will make it a proper +1 > I have documented the remaining items, and it no longer extends PEAR. While I'm sure there are still areas which need some improvement, everything has at least basic documentation. Additionally, Joe Stump has documented his offline processor as well, and all the code has been uploaded to the same location.