Re: Merging PHPLIB into PEAR

> From: rasmus@php.net (Rasmus Lerdorf) > Newsgroups: php.pear > Date: 19 Jan 2001 07:16:26 -0800 > Subject: Re: [PHP-PEAR] Merging PHPLIB into PEAR > > I see PEAR as being something more than a single application framework. > People have discussed standards to make it appear more uniform which is > fine. But we shouldn't go so far as to force people to work in a certain > way. This doesn't mean that there can't be application frameworks in > PEAR, but it does mean that we should be open to more than one of those. so long as those applications are the minimum necessary to satisfy basic interoperability requirements, I wholeheartedly agree with you. > I see no problems with adding PHPLIB and making whatever changes to it to > make it integrate better with some of the other PEAR classes. I also see > no problem with adding binarycloud or Metabase or anything else that comes > up that presents a different way to approach a problem. I don't see binarycloud as being added to pear, I see binarycloud (the applicaiton framework) using PEAR's resources. for example, if someone wants to build a an application on top of binarycloud, they would probably (in the future) end up using some PEAR library code that is integrated into binarycloud. the point of binarycloud is to provide a method for tying all of those components together coherently. > PEAR is not PHP. Some thought has gone into PHP to try to not make it > into a kitchen-sink scripting language where there is a hundred different > ways to do something. In my opinion PEAR should be a kitchen-sink > repository. We should apply whatever structure and uniformity we can to > PEAR, but not so much that we limit ourselves to one approach. absolutely. _alex