Re: [PEPr] Proposal for Structures::Structures_Graph

On 3 Feb 2004 at 21:34, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > <stefan@neufeind.net> wrote : > [...] > > Hmm, I'm currently think about what the class will be named that > > renders such "graphs" into images. Image_Graph is already "taken". > > And I don't think we should integrate functions for drawing those > > and maybe similar "graphs" that might come in the future. They don't > > have nothing in common with what Image_Graph currently does (will do > > when v0.2 is out). On the other hand: If Image_Graph might allow > > drawing of pie-graphs some day we will also need different > > functionality because there will be no "axes" etc. needed anymore. > > > > What do you (pear-dev-colleagues) think? > > Want my opinion ? Well, I just noticed that when it is someone else > (meaning not you) who is involved in a proposal, you tend to suggest > very often that the proposed package should be integrated into another > one that already exists. For an example, see Mail_Imap... Bertrand, please calm down. For Mail_Imap I was just thinking that the additional functionality provided might also be useful for other packages as well. As far as I got the topic with Mail_Imap there were also parsing-jobs that should be done which could as well be useful for parsing POP3-mail or similar, for handling mail in the already existing Net_IMAP (okay, I was wrong about that - excuse) or maybe even Mail_Mime (since I believe that the creation of Mime-messages is directly related to the parsing or even parse->change->sendout again). > Now, when you are the closest target to a package proposal > (Image_Graph vs Structure_Graph) you start by saying both packages > should not be integrated... For Structure_Graph I was *not* suggesting to integrate it because one primary aspect, in my eyes, is storing and handling of the nodes etc. The "Structure" indicated to me that it serves as a backend for handling the nodes, for managing meta-data etc. And I wondered what the renderer (a separate package!) might be named. I just wanted to mention that it's not that easily possible to integrate it into Image_Graph, since I believe that it would not fit easily into the concept and structure behind Image_Graph. If somebody teaches me different I'll be the last to say no ... that I can asure you! > So my opinion is that your behavior is a little unfair and next time > you suggest two packages should be integrated, think twice because it > might happen to you as well! May I remind you that it already happened when the IBAN-class was a bit stripped down and integrated into Validate? But apart from that I don't see why you say I'm unfair - thinking this way is unfair! Since this is a mailinglist for discussion, since we try to prevent multiple packages with similar functionality and since integration is nothing bad I expressed *my* thoughts and feelings about the ongoing discussions. It doesn't have to be *your* point of view, and maybe another point of view is even more correct than mine ... I can pretty well live with that and also learn from that. So feel free to say your oppinions and also try to give reasons for your feeling. But please speak up when discussion is going on and not accuse me that I'm "such a bad person" since I'm sure we both can get along very well. That having said I wish you a good night Stefan