Re: Template Proposal

I was reading this thread and as many people noted it's been coming up again many times. And will be coming again and again until people see that there is no poin of having it any more and such threads are dropped before they get like this one. I think there must be a clear distinction made. A class / package which is member of pear and a class / package which is pear compatible ( read uses pear install scripts for distribution, it does not mean that it must be hosted on pear.php.net ) There are many people complaining about pear's coding styles and with a right to do. Why not make a package.xml file negotiate a name space in PEAR, create a package and put it on-line some ware it's not part of pear but it can be used with pear. It was mentioned before a Application name space for provided app, which I think was were Forum should go to. So what if there is a contrib namespace, so people can make their applications packages whatever PEAR compliant without rewriting them. Many people say they want to contribute their code to pear, but many time what they mean is I want to give developers access to my code ( using pear's installation distribution ) and the pear userbase. That way we can safely say pear is pear and give developers an option to install and use what they want and like. And as chuck said instead of trying to choose if we want PEAR == CPAN or PEAR == Java we can have both. So to all people out there instead of trying to change pear suit you, either change you code or see how the installer works make a package and put it online somewere. Maybe there should be some infrastructure to support contributed classes. A section on pear.php.net for contributed packages where they can be downloaded from what they do etc. This section can be maintained by the actuall creators of the packages. For people who want cvs/web there is still sourceforge.net And remember you don't have to be pear complient to use pear :) Yavo