Re: Call for Votes: JSON location

On 4/7/06, Greg Beaver <cellog@php.net> wrote: > Pierre wrote: > > On 4/8/06, Daniel Convissor <danielc@analysisandsolutions.com> wrote: > > > >>Hi Pierre! > >> > >>On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:57:43PM +0200, Pierre wrote: > >> > >>>What's about a one to one mapping to pecl/json? > >> > >>I can interpret this to mean a few different things. Can you explain > >>exactly what you're thinking, please? > > > > > > In short: > > > > if (!extension_loaded('json')) include 'JSON.php'; > > > > --Pierre > > From an extensibility standpoint, this seems to me a bad idea. > > If the json extension were to change the way the code works or introduce > a bug (heaven forbid), there would be no easy way to fall back to > JSON.php if the json extension were loaded, as they would directly > conflict. Of course, one could go through JSON.php and rename > everything - and do the same in all of the code that uses it, but this > gets tedious fast. > I agree. The solution is to have JSON.php be a class, like normal PEAR code, and have a further include which can be used to set the json extension functions if people want this. Going even further, JSON.php could be a parent class which loads a backend which is either a PHP implementation (this package) or the extension. This would allow both types of usage. Developer 1 starts with json extension but wants to support people who don't/can't have it. They use the include which sets the functions json extension style. Developer 2 uses PEAR from the start but wants to use the json extension, if loaded, as it's faster. -- Justin Patrin