Re: Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

Greg Beaver wrote: >Aidan Lister wrote: > >> If you plan on making it a separate package, why would it still be >> "Pear_ErrorStack"? >> >> I'd love to use ErrorStack like I use any other package (in non pear >> projects), but I feel most other developers would not, as I would, because >> it sounds like a PEAR internal class. > >There may be an initial time period where people are put off by the >name, but word of mouth will correct that (and seeing it in action), >just as any good program has found in the past. Plus it might help to >remedy the PEAR stigma that already exists. > >Basically, I don't mind if a high quality package has "PEAR" in its >name, only if a low-quality one does. So, if PEAR_ErrorStack has flaws >in the code, I want to know about it. If it doesn't, then tell your >friends about it. As I said before, -1 about this. I don't know PEAR_ErrorStack, but if it doesn't extend PEAR, there's no reason to have PEAR in its name. I think most users that don't use PEAR do so because PEAR == infrastucture painfull to install and heavy code base (emulated destructors and other most of the time useless code). I have also notice that a lot of users download the packages using their url on pearweb, not using "pear install ...". This means that a lot of people don't have access to pear infrastructure for various reasons. In this case, when one see PEAR_ErrorStack, one think "PEAR ? not for me". Remove PEAR from PEAR_ErrorStack and gain a lot of users. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam