Re: Change "pOOcl" name

Vincent Lascaux wrote:

I'm not so sure on the naming your classes don't look much like php streams (http://us2.php.net/manual/en/ref.stream.php). Though maybe they can be used that way and there just isn't any examples of it.

Since it the stream name is ambiguous (with PHP streams), Pipe has been proposed. We would have Pipe, Pipe_Tar, Pipe_Gz, Pipe_Zip and Pipe_Mail

I am in favour of File_Archive, I would prefer this all in one package, its stupid seperating it IMO. What advantage does it give? Its seperated in the code, they will only include the code to do with the formats they're dealing with. Seperating it into packages just means the users have to type more commands to install it all. A solution to this is an empty packages which requires all the sub-packages as deps, and they can just do pear install --alldeps File_Compress I don't like the Pipe at all, nor streams. We're dealing with File formats here, regardless of how you access them, and people will look in this category first. We'll end up with: File/ Archive.php //File_Archive (a factory for File_Archive_$type?) Archive/

    Gzip.php      //File_Archive_Gzip
    Bz2.php       //File_Archive_Bz2
    Zip.php       //File_Archive_Zip
    Tar.php       //File_Archive_Tar
    Writer.php    //File_Archive_Writer (Factory for below?)
    Writer/
      Mail.php    //File_Archive_Writer_Mail
      HTTP.php    //File_Archive_Writer_HTTP
      FTP.php     //File_Archive_Writer_FTP (doesn't exist, it should)

Etc :) Before you say that this conflicts with Archive_Tar etc, remember that those are in Archive/* not File/Archive/* We might however, want to look into deprecating those in favour of this more complete and nice package :) - Davey