Re: Merging PHPLIB into PEAR

On 1/19/01 10:13 AM, "Chuck Hagenbuch" <chuck@horde.org> wrote: > Quoting Paul Meagher <paul@datavore.com>: > >> Unless I am mistaken, a large number of postings in the last few days have >> stated that this statement is true for web application developers: >> "PHP has PEAR, but it doesn't do what we need, so PHP really isn't offering >> us anything". >> >> Are we on the same page? Same planet? :-) > > I have my doubts about planet, but that doesn't have anything to do with you > or > this discussion. <g> > > I've seen people say "We want an application framework". I have yet to see a > convincing reason why that application framework should _be_ PEAR, instead of > being built on top of it. > I have a hard time understanding why PEAR can't operate as both. Why not? What's wrong with having an App;* tree on the top level where things like Auth, Perm, User, Cart, etc.. live that internally handle the other PEAR components as needed for you? Why can't there be multiple Auth implementations? (Using Auth as an example) Why does the simple act of having a simple Auth scheme in PEAR preclude individual App developers from rolling their own if they need something more powerful? (Again, Auth is an example here..) Why do you think that it isn't the right thing to do to give PHP users the easy ability to build complex and sophisticated websites right out of the box with out having to find a separate Auth lib that may or may not do what they need? Why do you think that developers will simply pooh-pooh PHP because PEAR doesn't have the functionality they need now? By that assumption, you're loosing lots of people right now as is. -n ........ nathan hruby Webmaster: UGA Department of Drama and Theatre Project Maintainer: phpSlash, Carousel nhruby@arches.uga.edu ........