[PEPr] Comment on Util::Util_Observable

Philippe Jausions (http://pear.php.net/user/jausions) has commented on the proposal for Util::Util_Observable. Comment: Tony, it seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot with such a comment ;-) Either "PEAR" considers this interface package as part of a framework, then should refuse it no matter its name or category... (Actually, any interface could be considered part of a framework, since the purpose of an interface is allowing interaction between indendent packages/classes.) Or PEAR embraces interfaces a la PHP5 (ignoring the fact that they can be considered framework stuff), then we need to properly categorize them. An "Interface" category doesn't seem right. The interface should resides the closest to (PEAR) packages that eventually implement them. The "Observer" interface IS a pattern no matter what category it's under. Placing under "Gardening" will not make it any less a pattern, which again could be considered framework... Because "Pattern" sounds like "framework", doesn't justify a miscategorization of a package. Besides PEAR is a framework (in my view), even though loosely tied. So the dilema is multifaced: 1. Should PEAR host interfaces? (IMHO, yes) 2. Are interfaces framework stuff? (yes) 3. Should PEAR host/recommend pattern design intefaces (why not? factory, singleton got pretty much standardized, even though not written into an interface) Although only most widely used patterns like the subject/onserver should be accepted, and with at least one package implementing it. - Is PHP5 too new for PEAR to make a decision... (IMHO, no, better make PEAR the leader) -Philippe Proposal information: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=125 -- Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net