Re: PEAR: The next biggest thing??? Maybe...

On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 08:03:55AM +0200, Martin Jansen wrote: > >I do think it's appropriate for individual _components_ of those > >frameworks to be added. For example, assuming an application > >framework had classes for authentication, online help, usage > >statistics, and image manipulation, we might be a PEAR hierarchy > >like this: > > > > pear/MyFramework/ > > Auth/ > > Help/ > > Stats/ > > Images/ > > If we do so, we will have to keep an eye on clearly separating > this classes from the rest of PEAR. Otherwise we will have a > big mess when there are more frameworks asking if they can > contribute their stuff. This shall not mean, that I don't want > to see parts of other frameworks in PEAR: I'm only worried about > keeping the clear and well organized structure, that we are > building up by naming conventions, directory structures etc. I don't think it will be a problem. These classes, etc. will need to conform to the standard PEAR conventions, so they should be easily separable from their "parent" framework. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be allowed to be added to the PEAR repository until they are. Using 'MyFramework' (or 'BinaryCloud' or whatever) is just an organization aid. The individual packages would need to conform to the PEAR versioning standards so that dependencies would work, too, even after an upgrade of the framework. -- Jon Parise (jon@csh.rit.edu) . Rochester Inst. of Technology http://www.csh.rit.edu/~jon/ : Computer Science House Member