Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on Date and Time::Date_Holidays

Stephan Schmidt wrote:

I still wouldn't require it for the first version for the following reasons: 1. I think the package is useful as it is now and I think the barrier for bringing new packages to PEAR is too high in a lot of cases.

The barrier is high, because PEAR does not allow competing packages. If Date_Holidays gets in and, in a month, a proposal for an ICS-compliant package comes in, it will be refused without discussion. You either have high barrier to entry or internal competition. Expecting the common response: Yes, I already know people should cooperate to add code into existing packages. However, this is a high barrier for packages being extracted from corporate projects for addition into PEAR. I know, I've been there.

2. If a user needs a new driver for his country or any other special cases, he'll have to learn the ICS format to build a new data file instead of building a new PHP file.

First, it'll be a lot harder for a user to need and write a new calendar. There are so many ICS calendars out there... Then, I don't see it as a lot different from having to understand the architecture of Date_Holidays and having to code it in PHP.

3. Implementing full support for ICS files will be a lot of work. AFAIK File_IMC only parses a file and returns an array with its content. It currently does not do anything with the RRULE property of any event. This has to be implemented in the Date_Holidays Driver. But as this is Carsten's proposal, we'll have to wait whether he is willing to implement ICS support, before or after the package is approved or not at all... Just my 2cts. Stephan

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc