Re: Combining Net_SMPP and Net_SMPP_Client?

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Simon Spencer <silospen@silospen.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 1:29 PM, till <klimpong@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Simon Spencer <silospen@silospen.com> wrote: >>> I just took over as lead maintainer of Net_SMPP. I was looking at >>> Net_SMPP_Client and I'm confused as to why these are separate. >>> Net_SMPP is essentially just creating PDU packets and parsing PDU >>> packets, something which I believe is useless without a client which >>> actually does the sending and receiving of SMPP PDUs. Net_SMPP_Client >>> is woefully inadequate also, it only allows a user to bind as >>> transmitter rather than a receiver/transceiver (so you can only send >>> PDUs, not get them) and it doesn't implement a lot of the SMPP 3.4 >>> protocol, such as retransmission timers, etc. At best, I would >>> describe it as a (poor) example of using Net_SMPP and not a separate >>> PEAR package! Sure, a user could use Net_SMPP_Client as a base to >>> build their own client, but I thought the point of PEAR was to promote >>> reuse of code! >>> >>> Could anyone explain the logic behind keeping these separate? >>> >>> I uploaded a work in progress version of my Client implementation to >>> >>> http://svn.php.net/viewvc/pear/packages/Net_SMPP/trunk/docs/examples/ >>> I apologise - it does not currently conform to PEAR standards. I'm >>> working on it (and trying to get the PEAR standards hammered into my >>> coding style!), soon it will and it'll be accompanied by full >>> documentation and unit tests. I've tried to implement most of the SMPP >>> 3.4 spec, but like I said, I'm working on it. >>> >>> My proposal is that Net_SMPP_Client is deleted and the code becomes >>> part of Net_SMPP's example section. I'm very interested in opinions on >>> my thoughts :) >>> >> >> Hi, >> >> maybe you want to create a full pear2 package instead and we mark >> Net_SMPP and Net_SMPP_Client deprecated when you are done? I think >> that would be the better go ahead here. :) >> >> The code really looks like it needs a lot of work -- aside from CS -- >> it seems to be PHP4-compatible and so on. >> >> Let us know if you need more pointers. >> >> Till >> > > > That sounds great! I don't really like the way the Net_SMPP libraries > work, with all the static calls and everything. I was wondering if I > could do a re-engineering, but I was worried that it would totally > break compatibility with previous versions. > > I think I will need some pointers. I'm reading through the section on > pear2 in the manual right now, do you have any links to any other > informative pear2 stuff? Do I need a separate SVN account/area? Do I > need to apply through the QA group again? > > Thanks :) > I don't think, sandbox access is a no-brainer. I cc'd Brett and Christian, I think they'll be happy to set you up. :) I think you'll probably need a separate SVN account, but I'm not sure. They should be able to help you. Till