Re: [PEPr] Call for votes on Web Services::Services_Webservice

Hello, > 1. As Sergio requested, it would have been better to have direct access > to the source (.phps) instead of the .tgz... which I have now downloaded > and found out there's only 1 class file in it, so it wouldn't have been > too hard to simply add .phps link... .... > 2. A lot of CS problem, especially in the lack of spaces around > operators and so on. Missing spaces about operators? That is not really a problem! > 3. Extending the Webservices_Webservice class is not good and too > restrictive. You should should use a decorator pattern that would accept > a class name or an instance of it on which you run the reflection > functions, and use the __call() PHP5 feature to pass the queries. Extending Webservice is too restrictive? Decorator pattern? Passing instance? I better not start a discussion about that! > 4. There is certainly a way to get some work with the upcoming XML_RPC2. > Maybe the XML_RPC2_Server should be spun into some kind of XMLRPC > profile to a generic WebService_Server package. That is right. > We don't want to duplicate efforts to implement reflection, docblock > parsing and so on for each different webservice protocol. Who do you mean with "We" ? You are probably right. But like things are going here in Pear this wouldn`t lead to any result. > As is, I would probably vote a -1. But will hold my vote for now, to see > how things are going first. Is up to you! >5. For the "info" method, use standard HTML and not <div >style="font-size: 36px"> type of things... An <h1> would have done just >fine. Yes, but I can also use <div> Please, if you want to do CodeReview then better prepare a little bit more. You cannot pass class-instances for Reflection. Do imagine where this would end up? Manfred Weber