Re: PEAR2 standards: anything good at all?

Travis Swicegood wrote:

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

The difference is that users in this case will be "forced" to rely on PHP native functionality and that they can expect a clear error message. So I am not so worried, but of course we will still see our share of "__autoload() wtf" support requests.

I think you just hit on something there, Lukas. __autoload and include_path are both features that aren't going to be immediately apparent to the new user that this is supposed to help. You're trading one support/bug request for another...

Just that one of them provides some added benefits while the other doesnt.

In any event, I see either of these proposed methods as a trade-off. __autoload() is going to be slow, allfiles is going to gobble up

__autoload() is not slower .. if you are not using a bytecode cache you will end up including a lot of files you never need if you rely on require_onc'ing all files containing classes that the code _could_ load. allfiles will provide (or a custom variant as per the user) the potential for noticeable speed gains for people that have already done all the standard performance enhancement steps.

memory. From the discussion that I've seen and participated in, we have two camps here that are equally intractable. I seriously doubt any further discussion is going to sway any minds, so I would be for moving this to a vote (or whatever would start its end of life cycle) so the standard can be adopted and/or rejected and people can likewise move on to to the important task of following or ignoring it... ;-)

I simply fail to see the disadvantages from this proposal, aside from that it requires a change in policy. Giving the fact that _all_ our current users stand to gain and that we also provide solutions for people we currently left in the dust, I am having a hard time to see the migration effort as a big issue .. especially since this is for a new major version of PEAR. regards, Lukas