RE: [PEAR-DEV] Something about PEAR policy

> 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 am not clear and why there is such an insistance to not have "two different classes with the same purpose" in PEAR. It seems that we would all do better in the long run if we did so and simply let the best class win so to speak. I have not really heard a compelling argument against doing so other than that is not what "we" want for PEAR. Why not take a free market approach to PEAR, if it sucks, than no one will use it etc etc etc. However, I am like Nathan in that I canot really figure out what PEAR is. > 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. Well... it seems what people are saying is that they would like to see something like the functionality of PHPLIB, maybe even the functionality of something like Binary Cloud, and more than one Template Engine (particularly SMARTY). While we have made what looks like progress on the last one by having two template engines, the other requests it seems are just flat out rejected based upon a definition of PEAR for which no one can clearly define. I hate to sound dogmatic here, but I feel I am a reasonably intelligent person and I cannot really define for myself what PEAR is and I spend a lot of time reading through the mail lists.