Re: [PEPr] +1 for Networking::Net_IDNA

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 at 13:38:37, Hans Lellelid wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > Hans, did you take into account the discussion we started a short while ago > > on pear-dev? I'd be happy if you could find the time to browse through the > > few postings regarding this today and express your thoughts. > > Yes, I have had a look at the threads. You see, I'm not particularly > traditional when it comes to weighing these packages. You may be right > that certain functionality should be included, but that has little to do > with my vote. > > Basically what I see is that: > > - Without having tried it, the code looks great. Okay, yes. That was not my point for voting -1. > - Matthias seems to be a very reasonable person & sounds like he is > going to make whatever changes are proven to be needed. There are different ways that the class might take. And we already discussed that topic a while back (can dig up the archives, if you like). And at that point several people agreed upon features that should be added. Unfortunately it took David a while to add them, and then came the new proposal. I know at the current stage it's late - but the missing features ("changes needed" in my eyes) are the reason for -1 on my side. It's really not against the "quality of code" or even personally Matthias. > - I tend do disagree with your desire to constantly abstract classes > into uber-classes (I think you had also suggested rolling Net_Geo and > Net_GeoIP into one class). Net_GeoIP is certainly an implementation > class & if Matthias says this is also then that makes sense to me. Haven't looked at Net_Geo/Net_GeoIP yet, unfortunately. But you seem to know me quite well by assuming things I don't know myself :-) > - I think that php5 interfaces can solve the aforementioned problem of > API, anyway. And they can be added after the fact (when there's more > than 1 implementation, for example). Could you explain that in a bit more detail? Which way would you propose? > - As for the bit about copyright, I didn't understand why that > contributed to a -1 either way. It was *not*. As explained above, the reason for the vote was something else. Rest of my conditional statement was a "deep source review". > - As for PHP4 support being a requirement, of course I disagree with > that :) You can always create a backport for PHP4 if you desire. Agreed! But if it takes quite few changes or maybe even just needs testing, I don't see why it should not be doable (read: be done). > Anyway, I don't claim to know much about this topic; kinda intriguing, > though. I don't think so, and it's not meant that way. It's just about achieving the most extensible, open and usable solution - by whomever. > If the concern about letting this in is that it precludes a competing > implementation, then PEAR needs to fix that issue. The "competing" is not the point. I just think that the interface and direction is completely different. Unfortunately voting has already started - and I don't know how we might solve such a "this or that way"-voting anyway. Maybe we find a consense for the package? Or otherwise could we maybe let the devs on the list do a "extraordinary" vote which way to go? > that IMO is no reason for a -1 to a clearly very well thought-out package.. It was not about the package itself, but with the way it tries to solve the problem (the limited API, in my eyes). Also note that there was an implementation already present and discussed with the devs. Unfortunately I wasn't able to speak up before and it was not yet proposed because David's additions were still missing up to today (which were a conditions by a few devs, before it should go to a proposal). > My .02, since you asked, Thank you very much! Stefan