Re: Something about PEAR policy

On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:09:26 -0400 (EDT), nathan r. hruby wrote: >On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Martin Jansen wrote: > >> >As Nathan Ruby says in his e-mail, >> >you PEAR folks don't want to have more than one class >> >for each category, e.g. two or more classes for DB >> >abstraction, templates and so on. >> >> That's not right: A few days ago we had a discussion about adding >> a new templating engine instead of IT[X] to PEAR: We came to the >> conclusion, that we could have more than one engine in PEAR, if >> the engines are designed for different needs. Example: We might >> present IT[X] for "normal, light-weight" sites and Smarty for >> high-traffic sites with the need of "extreme programming methods". >> >> But I think this has to be discussed for each individual category. >> > >The two above statements are contradictory. No, IMO they are not. It is my personal opinion, that the fact of allowing two different classes with the same purpose in PEAR currently has to be discussed in each single case. When somebody comes up with a better idea how to handle this, I'll probably change my mind. But right now nobody came up with an idea ... >I think this thinks goes long with the App Framework questions Wasn't this questions already answered a few days ago? (I don't remember exactly and I'm to laz^H^H busy to search for it right now.) >Is it a huge CPAN-like repository? It is inspired by CPAN. What it will be in the future, depends IMO on what you and others want => Tell us, what you want. >I've seen many concepts fly across this list about >those questiosn from a lot of people, all diffrent, no one every really >agreeing on anything. IIRC you have never been discussing with us about PEAR topics, right? (May be I'm wrong.) And now you suddenly come up complaining. Wouldn't it be better if you invoke discussions about concepts on pear-dev instead of simply complaining? - Martin