Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on Web Services::Services_Digg

Mark Wiesemann wrote: > Hi Joe, > > Joe Stump wrote: >> 3.) I still don't see how this effects Services_Digg (PEAR_Error will >> be converted ASAP to PEAR_Exception) as HTTP_Request isn't available >> in any tangible way to the users of Services_Digg. I can switch out >> to Net_Curl2 or HTTP_Request2 at any point in the future without >> breaking BC on Services_Digg. So, while I do see the point of the >> RFC, I don't see how it really applies in this situation. > > Services_Digg can only get into PEAR if it is E_STRICT compatible, which > is the point of the RFC. That means that not only the package needs to > be E_STRICT compatible, but also all packages it depends on. While you > depend on HTTP_Request (in the current available version), your package > can't be accepted if we don't want to break the rules. Hi Mark, I see no merit in rejecting a well-written, useful, unit-tested, documented package because nobody in PEAR has bothered to port a *working* package to a slightly different coding grammar and new API. This could discourage ALL useful web services packages from ever being proposed to PEAR until somebody decides they want to do the boring task of fixing up our PEAR-ified ways of requesting and sending HTTP. Danger, Will Robinson. :) Greg