Re: [PEPr] Call for votes on PEAR::PEAR_PackageUpdate

On 3/21/06, Scott Mattocks <scott@crisscott.com> wrote: > bertrand Gugger wrote: > > Then I'm definitively too late. > > > > Your example of Benchmark is bad choosed, > > as Benchmark should in any case never add overload to the tested script.. > > I still have in projects some Benchmark doing a minimum through sockets.. > > > > Sorry, but imho no production stuff can do such auto update. > > Why? Don't you have any applications that check for updates and let you > know when a new version is available (Thunderbird)? Maybe my example of > Benchmark was not the best, but PEAR_PackageUpdate would definitely be a > nice fit for PEAR_Frontend_XXX. When you run PEAR_Frontend_XXX > PEAR_PackageUpdate_XXX could be used to make sure that you have the > latest version. The uses of PEAR_PackageUpdate are not limited to other > PEAR packages. Just like any PEAR package it can be included in any PHP > application. If you've ever had to support multiple versions of software > I think you will appreciate the ability to keep all of your users as up > to date as possible without heavy user interaction. > I agree with you Scott. toggg: remember, this is a *package*, so this is opt-in, not opt-out. If you don't want this, don't put it in your packages. In addition, this meant more as a GUI thing. With GUI programs this is far more useful as it can allow the user to stay up to date. I love auto-update features in my packages. > > > > Some sketches would be better: > > * just issue a notice for people really wanting a production script "on > > the edge" > > This requires the user to manually update the package. Which, if the > user ever does update, can lead to confusion and errors. An automated > process is more likely to be run and less likely to cause problems down > the road. Plus error messages should not be displayed in production code. > > > * make a Net_Monitor_Service sub-class which would detect some upgrade > Yes, toggg, sounds like a great idea. A Net_Monitor_Service class which uses PEAR_PackageUpdate to check for updates would be cool. Again, though, this is the choice of the developer to use. This package is useful even without this. > You don't need a monitor. You just need to make two calls to the > packages channel server. One to check for updates the other to do the > update if needed. PEAR_PackageUpdate is light and easy yet powerful and > flexible. > -- Justin Patrin