Re: The RPCBlogging package

Hi Ian, First of all, thanks for your valuable comments. > - Is there any reason you're using the XML_RPC PEAR package instead of > PHP 5's native XML-RPC extension? I see "Warnings" all over the place in the PHP manual about the in-built XML-RPC functions. It's also not very versatile and also poorly documented. The PEAR package on the other hand, is well documented and mature. It seems to suit our purpose well, and most of all, it works just as expected (not the case with the inbuilt functions). > - You should move the functions needed by the drivers out of RPCBlogger > and into RPCBlogger_Extended; RPCBlogger_Extended shouldn't extend > RPCBlogger. Extended could be renamed to RPCBlogger_Driver, and form the > base class for the other drivers, since that's basically what it already > does. RPCBlogger_Extended cannot be the base class for all drivers because some API's (like the Blogger API) doesn't support all those extra methods. What I've tried to achieve here, is keeping all methods that are SURE to be present in ALL API's in RPCBlogger and keep the extra ones in RPCBlogger_Extended. Some drivers will extend from RPCBlogger, and more feature-rich ones from RPCBlogger_Extended. > - I'm not sold on the name. Perhaps Services_Blog ? Probably yes; but as I mentioned before, I would like to bring in RPC somewhere in the name because it's not the only way you could deal with blogs. There is a newer method that uses HTTP requests: the Atom API. This is another great way of communicating with blogs (A package for which is also on the way, maybe after I finish with this one). Is Services_RPCBlog Ok? (Consequentially, we could name the other package Services_AtomBlog). I have taken all your other points into account and hope to act on them in the coming week. Thank you for your time. Best Regards, -- Anant Find Freedom, Go Open Source! http://www.kix.in/