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

From: Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:55:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: BinaryCloud should be let into PEAR with others as well.... my 2cents
References: 1 2  Groups: php.pear.dev 
Request: Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-732@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
forgot to post this to pear-dev... >> Last news I had was PHPlib was in the process of being integrated? Maybe I >> missed something... >> > > You did, it ain't. Someone wanted to port a few of the "HTML-Wizard > Classes" to PEAR (like OOH-Forms, SQL_Query, etc..) but it still hasn't > happened, the SourceForge site set up to do this hasn't been touched in > since the intial import several months ago. Too bad. >> 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?) > > Yes, people did. yes, I saw that :) >>> 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. >> > > As do I, but it won't happen. Get over it. Neither phplib nor Nothing to get over, really. I am of the opinion that frameworks in pear would be good, but I'm not exactly committed to it, nor am I _dying_ to have binarycloud in pear. When I posted that original, I was under the impression that frameworks _were_ in pear, given phplib, and I could just check in (after all, why not?) > binarycloud will make it into PEAR. Just move along and pretend this > never happened. At least, that's what I'm doing. Heh, well discussion is discussion, that's what this is all for, right? Barring Sebastian's unintelligible "strange" comment, I think in general people responded quite normally: "I don't want that in here because it's not what we're doing" That says it, so I'm not checkin' in. >> Inclusion should not necessarily mean "endorsement" it should mean "base set >> of quality requirements met" >> > > Ahh.. But I get the feeling it does. Right. I think that's a mistake but that's me and this isn't the place for that. Did that once (the whole proving my point thing) and I only needed to do that once :) ------ Great code, all. I'm doing PEAR_Error integration into bc fairly soon, and will probably email issues/etc to the list. best, _alex

« previous php.pear.dev (#732) next »