Re: Re: Final RFC for Net_SMPP/Net_SMPP_Client

Hi, Lukas Smith wrote:

What I'm looking for here is a good reason why I should break adherence to the SMPP specification in favor of the PEAR CS. So far, the only argument I've gotten is "because you have to follow PEAR CS," while ignoring many significant cases where it's a bad idea, or they are ignored with no good reason.

the point is to make it possible for users and tools to easily determine the location of classes in the directory structure that are referenced in their code .. that this was a good idea was proven once more by the advent of __autoload().

It is actually a bad idea: PEAR packages should handle loading their files themselves. I already had to close a few bugs where users' overenthusiastic __autoload() functions broke on trying to load QuickForm's files. The "fix" to QuickForm is trivial, but I won't make it, my point being that users should not mess with automathic loading of package files. And if they are loading them manually, then they probably know what they are doing, including the correct file names.