Re: The RPCBlogging package

On 3/19/06, Anant Narayanan <anant@kix.in> wrote: > 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 would suggest Services_Blog_RPC and Services_Blog_Atom. In addition, couldn't RPC and Atom just be two drivers to one Services_Blog package? -- Justin Patrin