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

> > weber@mayflower.de wrote: > >>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! >> >> > Right, not a huge problem, but must still be fixed to be accepted. > .... >>>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! >> >> > class a { > } > > class b extend a { > } > > then how do you expose class b as a webservice??? Extending > Services_WebService is just plain bad design. > no it is not. it is not plain bad design like you said. it is the general way you do create webservices in other programming languages. you do not create a webservice from many classes but from ONE class! depending classes are considered as types within that class. So before we continue here i would propose you get some experience how that in general works. see what i really dont like and dont understand is how someone can come up with sentences like "that is plain bad design" without being informed enough. >>>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. >> >> > "we" = community of PEAR developer at large. It's not because there are > heated discussions some times that they don't end up good. It would > result in a better design (see recent discussion around XML_RPC2 and > XML_RPC2_Value_* classes) > >>>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> >> >> > Yes, you can, but then you are making it impossible to easily apply CSS. > Standard tags exist, so use them. It makes life easier. the infopage does not exist to be changed from any user. it gives information about the webservice. so why discus this now? >>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? >> >> > I'll just say: $instance->get_class() > > Passing an instance is not only for convenience, you may want to prepare > your service instance before exposing it and accepting requests... you do not create instances when generating wsdl. >>Manfred Weber >> > -Philippe >