Re: [PEPr] Proposal for HTTP::HTTP_Spider

> >* Why is PEAR.php included, if no feature that is provided by this file > > is used? Good question. No good answer. I wrote the class without pear for something I was working on, and now I'm trying to 'Pearize' it. I felt I should use PEAR because 'all the other classes are doing it'. I'll stop extending pear. Is it okay to just return false instead of a pear error? Is it preferred to return a pear error even if you only need a boolean so that future development is easier, e.g. you've added new logic to a function which requires the the addition of more fine grained errors. (Sorry, I'm new to PEAR development) > >* What purpose does the empty constructor serve? Again, none. I looked at some other classes to try to understand how some of the PEAR coding standards are used in practice. The class I looked at, PEAR_PackageFileManager, has an empty constructor. I'll remove mine. > >* There is a bunch of cool HTTP packages in PEAR, which should be used > > within HTTP_Spider. (E.g. HTTP_Request) Agreed. I am especially interested in HTTP_Client, because of its Cookie support, though it is listed as beta. I'll look at integrating HTTP_Request. > >* I do not think that it is a good idea to directly print debugging > > messages to stdout. Instead, Log should be used to faciliate a > > fine grained logging mechanism. I haven't looked into Log before. Great idea. On Friday 05 March 2004 12:42 pm, Marcos Neves wrote: > Excellent Idea. I did one sometime but it was specific. Your class is > generic. But I agree with Martin, if you wish to put your class at PEAR, > would be better it divide the work with other packages like HTTP. > > Marcos Neves > > At 18:39 5/3/2004 +0100, Martin Jansen wrote: > >On Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 05:2512PM -0000, PEPr wrote: > > > Matthew Feinberg (http://pear.php.net/user/ketbra) proposes the new > > > > package HTTP::HTTP_Spider. > > > > > You can find more detailed information here: > > > > > > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=29 > > > >There are a few technical issues with this package: > > > >* Why is PEAR.php included, if no feature that is provided by this file > > is used? > > > >* What purpose does the empty constructor serve? > > > >* There is a bunch of cool HTTP packages in PEAR, which should be used > > within HTTP_Spider. (E.g. HTTP_Request) > > > >* I do not think that it is a good idea to directly print debugging > > messages to stdout. Instead, Log should be used to faciliate a > > fine grained logging mechanism. > > > >-- > > - Martin Martin Jansen > > http://martinjansen.com/ > > > >-- > >PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php