Re: [PEPr] Call for votes on Authentication::OpenID

Jonathan Daugherty wrote: >>Turning those functions into methods makes other peoples code more >>organized and maintainable. You should think about the end user here. > > > I agree, and anything that we expect end-users to use is certainly > organized with their code quality in mind. > > >>The coding standards don't support your argument for using functions. > > > The coding standards do not forbid the declaration of functions that > aren't in a class, and that is all I'm really asserting. Whether the > names of our functions violate another aspect of the guide is a separate > issue. I'll gladly do a scan of the code to fix underscore usage in > functions; this is an API port and I'm sure we missed a few. Hi Jonathan, Glad to see you are trying to mke a foray into PEAR :). I hope this unsolicited advice is useful as you move forward with Auth_OpenID You are free to do as you wish, but do not forget that at least 5 existing PEAR developers need to vote +1 for the package to be accepted, so tread lightly when it comes to requests on things like CS. It might help your cause if you can provide positive reasons for using functions over a class. In other words: 1) why would users have no need to extend or override functionality? (primary benefit of OO) 2) what additional benefits do using functions over classes have for your users and for the maintenance of this specific package? Good luck :) Greg