[PEPr] Comment on Web Services::Services_Hatena
| From: | bertrand Gugger | Date: | Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:10:15 +0000 |
| Subject: | [PEPr] Comment on Web Services::Services_Hatena | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-41643@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
bertrand Gugger (http://pear.php.net/user/toggg) has commented on the proposal for Web
Services::Services_Hatena.
Comment:
Looks very nice and complete. Few points more:
* you don't neet parenthesis in require as:
require_once 'Services/Hatena/base.php';
* use better single quotes everywhere you don't need some expansion, it's
more performant
* you use PEAR but I don't find any require for it ?
* the rule by PEAR is one class per file, you may not declare 2 classes in
Base.php, you need do separate Services_Hatena_login in its own file.
* you must put the first letter of coumpounds in uppercase as
Services_Hatena_Login, file names also as Login.php
* one docbook entry missing for $parameters in Bookmark.php, Foto.php ...
* @version CVS: $Id$ only in file header, class header should have
@version Release: @package_version@
* make a better description in package.xml, that will be on site and
should explain what does the package. The thanks you have currently there
would be better welcome in notes
* be aware version numbers as 0.0.x are only for the proposal time, your
first release will have to be 0.1.0
* your test/demo hatena_services.php should be in doc/examples, not in
data
* you are missing some dependencies (HTTP_Request, XML_RPC ...) in
package.xml
* is it not possible to set the hatena base url in Base.php and have each
service just add their own path to it ? you repeat it in each of them...
* also some services looks very similar they could eventually have share
some code, but it's esthetic, not necessarly a problem
* More generally, I wonder if some unification would not be possible, each
service has its own different interface, lot to learn ... but it's inherent
to each service's particularity certainly.
* We tend to privilagiate PHP5, however you don't seem to necessitate it,
being compat PHP4/5 could profit to more people ... (my personal opinion)
Proposal information:
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=362
--
Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net