Re: function caching - which way?

Quoting Martin Jansen <mail@martin-jansen.de>: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:34:22 +1100 (EST), Graeme Merrall wrote: > > >Is it better to use the Cache/Function class or should I roll my own > via > >serialisation or some such? The reason I ask is that Cache is currently > in > >php4/pear and this new class would with any luck :) end up in in > /pear > > The code from php4/pear will survive all the rumors that have > been on this list in the last weeks :-). > > Honestly: I don't see any problem in using the existing PEAR > code. Why reinvent the wheel? Yeah I thought that would be fine, although I note that there is no dependency stuff in the package DTD although some discussion took place regarding dependencies back in July. This would be useful in my case as it requires a new version of Net/Curl.php to operate. In addition to the DTD of something like this may be sufficient inititially? <!ELEMENT release (version? , state? , date , notes? , filelist , depends?)> <!ELEMENT depends (php , pear)> <!ELEMENT php (version , extension)> <!ELEMENT pear (extension)> <!ELEMENT extension (name , version)> This doesn't account for webserver, OS, external programs but should actually deal with different versions in a very general way. Also I've spotted an errors in package.dtd where libname is defined twice and includes is not defined. Patch attached. --- package.dtd Fri Nov 2 10:39:38 2001 +++ package.new Tue Nov 20 11:57:57 2001 @@ -114,8 +114,8 @@ %role.atts; > <!--=============== ELEMENT: libname =======================================--> -<!ELEMENT libname (#PCDATA)> -<!ATTLIST libname +<!ELEMENT includes (#PCDATA)> +<!ATTLIST includes %global.atts; > <!--=============== ELEMENT: sources =======================================--> Cheers, Graeme