Re: [pear-webmaster] Re: [PEAR-DEV] changes to "RFC::Proposed PEARWEB Changes"

--On October 3, 2006 10:34:30 AM -0400 Scott Mattocks <scott@crisscott.com> wrote: > Someone (Greg I think) mentioned about pearweb not using enough PEAR > classes. I think in the pearweb refactoring section, we should try to > make pearweb use only PEAR packages. If we don't have enough confidence > in our own code to use it then why should anyone else. I will add this idea to the RFC. For the record: I think Arnaud first mentioned something like "pearweb should eat more of its own dog food". Does anyone know -- or is anyone willing to do some source code review to figure out -- what specifically could be refactored? ...one or more specific examples of places where "pearweb" rolls its own "foo" and there's a package we should be using? I know of at least one case (Damblan) where pearweb should move code out into PEAR. But from what I understand of Damblan, those who created it would like to accomplish a little more before pushing it out? ---- PEAR web/CVS: cconstantine cconstantine@php.net / craig.blurfl.com