Re: GoogleAPI class

On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 11:54:42AM -0700, Shane Caraveo wrote: > >>>>>SOAP_Google? > >>>>Google_SOAP would be better. > >>>Why? What other Google-classes does you expect? :-) > >>If that's the case, then just Google would be best. Why add the SOAP > >>qualifier? > > Because it build upon SOAP? Ans also because we have names like XML_Tree, XML_RCP, > > NET_Ping, NET_POP3, etc > > I'm not entirely certain SOAP classes like the google class should go > into PEAR. But if they do, we should handle it very carefully. I could > see a day when there are a few hundred...few thousand...files people add > to PEAR for various services. Exactly in the way also CPAN is used. And don't forget where PEAR stands for (PHP Extension and Application Repository). So how more packages there are in PEAR, the better. Another reason why i think PEAR is great is except from the fact that every class has the same coding standard is that it is for companies where i work very handy that there are good repositories where classes could be found. The whole PEAR standard is now also a standard within our company for PHP development. Packages that other developers could use we commit to pear. > A structure needs to be planed out at the > very beginning for this. My first thought is something along the line > of PECL. A command along the lines of 'pear install webservice > GoogleSearch' would be cool, then a person could simply install a web > service directly. But lets not jump the gun with the "first" cool > public web service. But everybody knows how hard it is to put a package in a logical category. And maybe we should place SOAP_Google in SOAP/SOAP_Google, where i think it's important to maintain the full name of the package so that it's easy to find it back in the CVS repository. And about pear install. Make a proposal and send it to pear-dev.. As you know we like standards and good ideas ;-) Dave Mertens