Re: BinaryCloud should be let into PEAR with others as well.... my 2cents

>> Stig Bakken wrote: >>> I don't really have any strong opinions on this, so I'll go with >>> the majority. >> >> Okay, since we decided not to add application frameworks like >> PHPLIB to PEAR I'm strongly against adding binarycloud. Huh? Last news I had was PHPlib was in the process of being integrated? Maybe I missed something... >> Sebastian Bergmann I agree with Stig on this. If the pear community doesn't want that, I agree. but and to continue... (if you want the three second version, I think applications frameworks are fine in PEAR so long as they do not dictate to pear, and meet the coding requirements) > I don't understand what it would hurt to add binary cloud, I only see how, > in the end it would help, by making PEAR seem to many as something more > worthwhile. It seems that ultimately what stands in the way of widespread > use of PEAR in the first place is a lack of ease to use the system and set > it up. (I am speaking as someone who is not a seasoned programmer but a web > designer who found himself in a position where he had to learn web > programming). PHP itself has met with great success, I would argue primarily > due to the support (an online manual that is extremely useful), as well as > its flexibility and ease of use. I agree to a certain extent, though binarycloud is not your perfect example of ease-of-use. it requires a good deal of setup and config, because it's a beefy system. I haven't see anyony on the list say "no, don't add it" so I'm not sure what this is in reply to (did I miss something?) > PEAR on the other hand, while valuable, and I see a lot of potential for it, > I don't see it gaining widespread use until people who are not necesarily > coming from a programming background (such as myself) see it as easy to use, I disagree 100%. PEAR is serious s*it, which is exactly what php needs. This kind of development (pear and binarycloud and I'm sure others) requires discipline, and it's complex stuff. While I agree that some of the tools should be "easy" to use because they are clearly defined and well documented, I am not interested in making things "easy" for their own sake. I'm speaking for bc here, though I would venture to guess that the pear people feel sort of the same way. > impliment, and see a real use for it. As it stands there are other database > abstraction layers out there, there are other classes available that give > the average developer all they would need, so their it no real need for PEAR > for most people unless they are a die hard coder, or programmer, or are just > sympathetic to the cause. That is ostensibly true. But: when I went looking for serious, pluggable chunks of code before I thought of binarycloud, I didn't find much. So I went about creating a means for that to happen. As it happens, PEAR is doing stuff I'm not: pear doesn't do system design, it does high quality libraries, which fits perfectly with binarycloud. binarycloud will actually rely on a number of PEAR libs (but that's another thread) :) > However, make room for application frameworks for binary cloud and the like, > and keep those separate somehow from the core of PEAR, but at least allow > them in somwhow, and now you have something that many, I mean MANY people > would be very interested in. That I agree with. Inclusion should not necessarily mean "endorsement" it should mean "base set of quality requirements met" > I don't see why we could not somehow make room for other application > frameworks like binary cloud. After all, if they are based on top of PEAR it > only makes sense to me, especially if someone is willing to spend the time > to port them over. At the least, I argue it could not hurt, only help in the > long run, both those interested in developing binary cloud and those > interested in developing PEAR. As it stands we have all this effor going in > two different directions, seems such a waste. Personally I would love to see > it. Actually, not. I danced around pear for a bit to make sure we weren't doing duplicative things - we are a _little_ with some of the binarycloud core classes, but otherwise I intend to rely on PEAR quite extensively for caching, error handling, and many, many other miscellaneous tasks. There is a small amount of "conflict" but I view it as so small as to be negligible. The code in pear is written with discipline - which is something the php community badly needs. -alex