Re: GoogleAPI class

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:55:41 +0200, Dave Mertens wrote: >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. I'm not sure if I like CPAN "as it is" and I will surely not try to bring PEAR as close to the entrance of hell than CPAN right now is :-). >So how more packages there are in PEAR, the better. I respectfully disagree a bit here: Quantitiy is usually not equal to Quality and I don't prefer quantity over quality. - Martin -- Martin Jansen, <mail@martin-jansen.de> http://www.martin-jansen.de/