Re: another Auth-class

n Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:17:40 +0100 Wolfram Kriesing <lists@kriesing.de> wrote: > On Tuesday 30 October 2001 18:13, you wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:40:17 +0100, Wolfram Kriesing wrote: > > >i thought of extending my Auth-classes to end up with something > > > like a user management system, > > > > I don't think that it is a good thing [tm] to do this. IMO it would > > be ways better to create a class "User" (or whatever), which takes > > Auth as the base for it's authentication. Putting all this user > > management stuff into the Auth class is pure overhead. Just as ever. We don't have (or must not) to reinvent the wheel. Pear is (or will be :) an API (or I really missed something), like cspan, if we want want a good tool, we have to respect the model. Every higher level classes have to use lower levels classes. IMO it's true for the file system, db access, auth,... > That's only a question of good documentation. If something is > documentated in a proper way, you don't have to care about > that. That's a real problem... Is there a team dedicated to the pear model ? To define rules and publish specifications (already implemented or not) ? I read pear docs and good threads in archive' list just not found specs. btw, if you need help (publish, translate to french or whatever) I m available ;) pa