Re: Considering package proposal: Cgiapp

Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

There's a part of me that would like to say, "What's the problem with having a Frameworks category? If there's more than one framework available, and they're sufficiently different, then it fits the criteria you've outlined." However, I also see what others have pointed out in this thread: you then get a bunch of questions to the lists about, "which is better?" Which ends up in flame wars, bruised egos, and time wasted from PEAR development.

I dont buy the bruised egos argument either. PEAR doesnt care about egos :-) Seriously though if we did allow frameworks then only those that we feel comfortable endorsing. If we have multiple frameworks then they simply would need to fit the "non-redundant" definition and so be it. However the reason is not egos or fear of endorsing a given solution but the reason stated in my previous email: "We have decided not to allow abstract frameworks (aka glue code) into PEAR" regards, Lukas