Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on Web Services::Services_Digg
| From: | Gregory Beaver | Date: | Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:20:20 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on Web Services::Services_Digg | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-46387@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Alexey Borzov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gregory Beaver wrote:
>>> Alexey Borzov (http://pear.php.net/user/avb) has commented on the
>>> proposal for Web Services::Services_Digg.
>>>
>>> Comment:
>>>
>>> The package may not have HTTP_Request as a required dependency since
>>> HTTP_Request is not a E_STRICT compatible package, see
>>> http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=419
>>
>> There is no E_STRICT alternative to HTTP_Request, I strongly recommend
>> we allow dependencies on older packages when there is no alternative.
>
> I strongly recommend going the other way round and "fix" the package
> in question instead of fixing the rules each time. One of the goals of
> my E_STRICT RFC was to encourage the rewrite of base packages like
> HTTP_Request to PHP5 (yes, I know that I'm its maintainer, but outside
> help won't do any harm).
Hi,
Everyone is in favor of newer packages to implement better fixes for the
problems solved by the old packages. Should we then simply reject new
packages like Services_Digg if they do depend on existing non-E_STRICT
packages? I fear that this is a good way to deter developers from
joining PEAR (not in Joe's case, he's been around, but others who lurk
on the list will see this).
Since the E_STRICT RFC was accepted, how many packages have in fact been
rewritten to support E_STRICT? On my quick scan of the packages list,
here are 5 packages out of about 350 or so PHP4-based packages. We have
on the other hand, had many new submissions of PHP5-based packages.
I am pretty sure that if we *really* want to encourage people to
re-develop existing solutions in PHP 5, there needs to be more carrot
than stick. In other words, rather than punishing people who submit
packages that are written in PHP 5 but depend upon older solutions, we
need to create a good reason for developers to devote time to fixing up
an old solution into the new language features.
Frankly, all of the energy devoted to re-inventing the wheel in PHP 5 is
happening in the Zend Framework, but even there, they have rules that
prevent innovation from happening at its full possible speed.
Ironically, considering our current topic, just a few weeks ago I saw
that a user had already ported HTTP_Request to PHP 5, and proposed it to
Zend. Zend rejected it as it was not written from scratch, so we are
not alone in having our set of peculiar rules (all for good reasons, of
course, but it doesn't make them any less peculiar).
The real question, as I see it, is why that user then did not turn
around and propose his changes to PEAR? There is a public perception
that outsiders are not welcome to provide major changes to existing
packages, and very few people have pierced the veil to see that in fact
innovation is welcome in PEAR.
Truthfully, every time I think about proposing a change to someone
else's package, I get this fear that someone will yell at me for doing
something wrong, and if *I* get that feeling, what are the odds that
someone who hasn't been hacking on PEAR for years will get that feeling
too? I think it might be a good time to take a look at how we can
channel the creative energies of new contributors.
The other day, someone on IRC mentioned that they would like to see
package requests for PEAR. I would like to refine this idea a bit, and
have per-collective roadmaps, where users can request a solution to a
problem, which can then be assigned to the roadmap for a collective.
This would allow those of us inside PEAR to request, for instance, a
PHP5-based implementation of Net_Socket, and visibly assign it to a
collective's roadmap. Then, if we rework the front page of pear.php.net
and provide a "Want to help out?" link, I suspect we will find the
conversion rate of existing packages will climb significantly.
As for the spat between Alexey and David, I trust you will both work out
the differences. From my vantage point, I don't see a problem here.
Both Alexey and David have shown strong commitment to improving PEAR.
David is offering to help out with coding the new HTTP_Request, and
Alexey wants people to help out. Let's try to keep things friendly
unless there's a serious reason for warring words.
Thanks,
Greg