RE: [PEAR] Some PEAR remarks

HI I hope your new release will work on w2k/IIS.... PEAR does without any problems. Steen -----Original Message----- From: Manuel Lemos [mailto:mlemos@acm.org] Sent: 21. april 2002 13:25 To: pear-general@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [PEAR] Some PEAR remarks Hello, Vincent Oostindie wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:41:21 +0200, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > >> As I said in another post in this thread, I think classes DB and > >> DB_common are too feature-bloated. Methods like 'fetchOne' and > >> 'fetchAll' simply shouldn't be there, because they do not add a new > >> feature to the library; they only combine a couple of existing features > >> to make using them easier to use. That kind of code shouldn't be in a > >> library, or at least not at that level. > > > > Not in a library? Then where should it be? They certainly are features > > in a library, because they provide a quick and easy way to do simple > > queries, which makes programmers more productive. > > Aren't you confusing class libraries with procedural libraries? It's > generally okay to put lots of functions in a procedural library, take the > C string library for example. On the other hand, a class in a class > library should be fairly small, especially when it's a base class . Take > the C++ string class for example: it has much less features than its C > equivalent. That's not to say the features shouldn't be in the library at > all, but they should be somewhere else, at a different level, for example > in a utility class with static only methods, or in a specialized > subclass. > > I really don't want to sound arrogant, but I would still urge you to read > up on how to design and implement libraries, especially class libraries. > It is a discipline not comparable to designing applications or procedural > libraries. It's very, very difficult to do right. > > All in all, I think I now have a pretty clear idea of how the PEAR > library is designed, and I think I have said all I wanted to say about > it. Your responses have shown that you think different about many things, > which is of course allright. On the other hand, my viewpoints on the > subject differ too much from yours, and my conclusion is that I will not > be using the PEAR library myself. I hate procedural code, and to me the > PEAR library is just that: a procedural library in the disguise of a > class library. That's okay for many developers, so they will likely be > very happy with your work. But I, for one, am not. > > Anyway, thank you all very much for your responses and opinions. I hope > we all learned something from them. At least be sure I did. Have you looked into BinaryCloud? It is a different beast. It is something very well planned ahead as opposed to the Ad-hoc contributions of PEAR. You may want to take a look at it and your input is certainly well appreciated there: http://binarycloud.tigris.org/ Regards, Manuel Lemos -- PEAR General Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php