Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 at 10:41:01, Bertrand Mansion 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. > > I share the same opinion. I'd like to get rid of "require 'PEAR.php'" > in all > my scripts as I am only using it for errors. If there was a standalone > package for error handling, without the need for the whole PEAR > infrastructure, that would be cool. I get a lot of mails and read a lot of > forum threads or blog entries where people are not using PEAR packages > because of all the dependency there is with the main PEAR package. > > I think that those people would give PEAR a try if all they had to install > was the common error class, instead of having to run go-pear etc, something > they are sometimes not allowed to do anyway. But this implies also being able to simply download/unpack the packages - which often gets you in trouble anyway, right? If we desire to make this possible we'd maybe have to mark all packages that don't extract like usual but do some special text-replacements (path-names, ...) or install into a dir-structure that's not inside the package. However I don't think that this two-class- separation of packages would be a good idea. Regards, Stefan