Re: PEAR2 Standards
| From: | Jon Parise | Date: | Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:41:43 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEAR2 Standards | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-48796@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 03:06:16PM -0600, Greg Beaver wrote:
> >> http://pear.php.net/manual/en/pear2cs.php
> >
> > 1. The "Introduction" section isn't really an introduction. The
> > first paragraph is sort of an introduction, but the rest of the
> > section simply extols the virtues of __autoload().
>
> Revisions are welcome
I honestly don't feel qualified to write an introduction to this
document. I was just pointing out that what's there could use
improvement.
> > 2. I'm not a fan of the 'PEAR2' namespace. Let's just use
> > 'PEAR'.
> > Namespaces don't currently exist for all intents and purposes so
> > there shouldn't be any conflicts with existing code.
>
> It conflicts with all packages with "PEAR_" in the name (PEAR Installer,
> PEAR_RemoteInstall, PEAR_PackageFileManager, PEAR_Info) and this is not
> an option.
I see that it conflicts with 22 "^PEAR_" packages out of 380 total
packages at a filesystem level. In actually, it really on conflicts
with 7 top-level packages; the rest are subpackages of those 7.
In my opinion, that doesn't seem like a compelling argument to start
off with a versioned namespace. But maybe this is a moot point should
namespaces not be adopted by PEAR.
> > 6. If package.xml replacement tasks shouldn't be used to retrieve
> > path locations for 'php', 'data', or 'www' files, I
> > would suggest
> > making it impossible to do so instead of adding a prohibition in
> > the coding standards document.
>
> This would make it impossible to use Pyrus to install existing PEAR
> packages, which is not a goal of the standards.
Does Pyrus have the ability to know whether its installing a PEAR2
package?
> > 7. Please explain how I should go about porting existing PEAR
> > packages to PEAR2. For example, can I still use PEAR_Error, or
> > must everything now use PEAR2::Exception?
>
> The standards are quite clear on this - PEAR_Error is dead.
I searched around and found this document that tells me that
PEAR_Error has been deprecated:
http://pear.php.net/manual/en/standards.errors.php
A number of current PEAR(1) packages are still using PEAR_Error so
that they can maintain PHP4 compatibility. I don't think I'd agree
that "PEAR_Error is dead" is quite clear, but I see that it has been
officially documented as deprecated.
I would include text in the new PEAR2 standards that explicitly states
that PEAR_Error is no longer available (which is different than it
being deprecated, which is what the document effectively says right
now).
--
Jon Parise (jon of php.net) :: The PHP Project (http://www.php.net/)