Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

From: Paul M Jones <pmjones@ciaweb.net> > Clay, how hard do you think it would be to extend or reuse the SCM_SVN > model to work with CVS or RCS? I ask only for the future of the > category and/or tools like SCM_SVN in PEAR. Hi Paul -- I don't think it would be too tough. The model for the package is basically this: a base factory class and a common class, which is extended by all the different sub-commands available to the tool in question. (svn annotate, cvs annotate, etc.) The each subclass has within it the available options for the command-line switches, along with any other idiosyncrasies particular to that sub-command. I haven't ever worked with RCS directly, so I can't speak to that -- but I've spent a good deal of time with CVS and SVN, and I think both are well suited for the model I went with. The base class can be extended indefinitely (within the limits of the tool being wrapped, anyway) with as many subclasses get tossed into the <TOOL> subdirectory. I'm open to suggestions for other models, though, if anyone has some good ideas along those lines. > Myself, I don't see PEAR as a competitor to HORDE. I think the two can > achieve a good and fruitful symbiosis, if enough members on each side > can find common ground. Agreed! > And a good fill it looks to be. As you say, nobody in PEAR has > scratched that itch. Thanks, Paul -- I appreciate the feedback. Regards, Clay -- Killersoft.com