Re: Re: Final RFC for Net_SMPP/Net_SMPP_Client

On Tuesday 19 July 2005 03:49 pm, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:33:29 -0700 > > ieure@php.net (Ian Eure) wrote: > > It's harder because you need to read the SMPP specification, then > > read additional documentation about how Net_SMPP works relative > > to that document. If Net_SMPP follows the spec closely, you only > > have to learn a few functions, instead of relearning part of the > > actual spec. > > The same discussions raised many times here, read the archives if > you need more arguments. > I'd appreciate a citation, or subject of one of these threads. The PEAR ML archives are all white-on-black which causes me physical pain to read for any amount of time. > And no, I will not download the specs unless they are freely > available. > They're free, you just need to supply an email address. > > Your statement is demonstrably false. > > > > So I ask again: why does the rule apply to me and not to you? > > You are wrong here and I'm not going to argue more about that. > In what way am I wrong? Were there releases of your packages before Feb 2002? Is the Wayback Machine incorrect? Or are the facts correct, but my conclusion wrong? I just want to understand why there seem to be different standards applied to different packages. > > You also completely ignore my arguments regarding I18Nv2 and > > PHP_Compat. > > I do not talk for other people, neither I use or review these > packages. For PHP_Compat, the reasons are obvious again. It has to > provide functions to be equivalent to PHP native functions, which > do not follow our CS. > As I have already said, it's the exact same case with Net_SMPP. I'm providing an interface equivalent to the SMPP v3.4 specification, which doesn't follow PEAR CS. > This topic is closed for me. You have to apply the CS. It's not > only for new but for every new packages. > It wasn't applied to I18Nv2 or PHP_Compat when they were proposed and accepted, nor to any of the other packages I found, including two of yours. How are/were those any different from Net_SMPP?

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature]